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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 7
<CIK> 0000914804
<NAME> FIRST FORTIS LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                   DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                                      JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                                        DEC-31-1995
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                                112,183,452
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                       0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                         0
<EQUITIES>                                               89,345
<MORTGAGE>                                                  0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                               0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                      119,122,797
<CASH>                                                1,145,131
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                                    9,335,947
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                                      0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      139,913,293
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                      81,972,455
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                                         0
<POLICY-OTHER>                                       13,561,740
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                       0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                       0
<PREFERRED>                                                 0
<COMMON>                                              2,000,000
<OTHER-SE>                                           36,390,304
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        139,913,293
<PREMIUMS>                                           81,201,730
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                                   7,465,751
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                                    2,683,100
<OTHER-INCOME>                                          297,767
<BENEFITS>                                           72,799,157
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                                 0
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                                  4,595,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      (4,722,786)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         (1,562,943)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  (3,159,843)
<DISCONTINUED>                                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                             0
<CHANGES>                                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                         (3,159,843)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                               0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                               0
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       66,136,369
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  57,400,613
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                      (808,386)
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   35,779,078
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     21,185,448
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      65,764,070
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                                (808,386)
        

</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of the Application of The Elmsford Real Estate Company for the Drainage of Certain Low, Wet and Swampy Lands in the Valley of the Saw Mill River in the Town of Greenburgh, Westchester County, New York. The New York and Putnam Railroad Company, Appellant; Thomas R. Hodge and Others, Commissioners, Respondents.

Orders affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Ho opinion. Hirschherg, P. J., Jenks, Gaynor, Rich and Miller, JJ., concurred.
1 In The



### Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

N O . 09

- 22

- 0 0211

- CR

__________________

EX PARTE LENNON CLARK

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 253rd District Court

Liberty County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 22DC

- WR

- 00789

__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Lennon Clark filed a motion to dismiss his appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42. 2 (a).

Clark and his attorney signed the mot i on. See id

.

We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See id . 43.2(f).

APPEAL DISM I SSED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on August 2, 2022

Opinion Delivered August 3, 2022

Do Not Publish

Before Kreger, Horton and Johnson, JJ.
#### George W. Brown, Appellant, v. Lafayette B. Eaton, as Administrator with the Will Annexed, etc., of Caroline Holley, Deceased, Respondent.

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs.
ELY-EX-10.2 Q114




Exhibit 10.2


FIRST AMENDMENT TO 
OFFICER EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


This First Amendment to Officer Employment Agreement ("First Amendment") is entered into effective March 24, 2014, by and between Callaway Golf Company, a Delaware corporation (the "Company") and Brian P. Lynch ("Employee").


A.    The Company and Employee are parties to that certain Officer Employment Agreement entered into as of June 1, 2012 (the "Agreement").


B.    The Company and Employee desire to amend the Agreement pursuant to Section 10(b) of the Agreement.


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and other consideration, the value and sufficiency of which are acknowledged, the Company and Employee agree as follows:


1.    Compensation.  Sections 4(a) and (b) of the Agreement are amended to read:


“(a)    Base Salary.  In accordance with the Company’s usual review and pay practices, the Company agrees to pay Employee a base salary of no less than $325,000.00 per year (prorated for any partial years of employment), payable in equal installments on regularly scheduled Company pay dates.  Employee agrees that the Company may increase Employee’s base salary without requiring an amendment of this Agreement through the use of a Personnel Action Notice.  


(b)    Annual Incentive.  The Company shall provide Employee an opportunity to earn an annual incentive payment based upon participation in the Company’s applicable incentive plan as it may or may not exist from time to time.  Employee’s incentive target percentage is fifty-five percent (55%) of Employee’s annual base salary.  Any annual incentive payment earned pursuant to an applicable incentive plan shall be payable in the first quarter of the following year.”


The balance of Section 4 shall remain unchanged.


2.    But for the amendments contained herein, and any other written amendments properly executed by the parties, the Agreement shall otherwise remain unchanged.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this First Amendment effective as of the date first set forth above.  
	
			
	EMPLOYEE
	 
	COMPANY

	 
	 
	Callaway Golf Company, a Delaware corporation

	 
	 
	 

	/s/ Brian P. Lynch
	 
	By: /s/ Chris Carroll

	Brian P. Lynch
	 
	Chris Carroll

	 
	 
	Senior Vice President, Global Human Resources







1
#### Josephine Strauss v. Margaret Thoman (2 cases).

Motions, denied, with ten dollars costs.
Order entered September 1 8 , 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 12
- 01628
- CR JOSE CUTBERTO VALLE, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 3

Dallas County, Texas Tria l Court Cause No. F11
- 61804
- J



### O RDER
The Court REINSTATES the appeal. On August 21, 2013, we ordered the trial court to make findings regarding why appellant’s brief has not been filed. We ADOPT the findings that: (1) appellant desires to pursue the app eal; (2) appellant is indigent and represented by court

- appointed counsel Kathleen Walsh; (3) Ms. Walsh’s explanation for the delay in filing appellant’s brief is her workload; and (4) Ms. Walsh requested thirty days from the September 10, 2013 hearing to file appellant’s
brief.
We ORDER appellant to file his brief by OCTOBER 10, 2013 . We note that appellant has already been granted one thirty

- day extension of time to file his brief and the brief is now nearly three months overdue. Accordingly, no further extensions will be granted. If appellant’sbrief is not filed by the date specified, we will order Kathleen Walsh and the Dallas County

Public Defender’s Office removed as counsel and will order the trial court to appoint new counsel to represent appella nt in this appeal.
We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to the Honorable Dominique Collins, Presiding Judge, Criminal District Court No. 4; Katherine Drew, Appellate

- Chief, Dallas County Public Defender’s Office; Ka thleen Walsh, Dallas County Public Defender’s Office; and to the Dallas County District Attorney’s Office.

/s/ DAVID EVANS JUSTICE
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Transportation

###### Federal Aviation Administration 

# AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. 

# ACTION:

Notice of RTCA Special Committee 206 meeting. 

# SUMMARY:

The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a meeting of RTCA Special Committee 206: Aeronautical Information Services Data Link. 

# DATES:

The meeting will be held September 8-12 from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. 

# ADDRESS:

The meeting will be held at Rocky Mountain Park Holiday Inn, 101 South Saint Vrain, P.O. Box 1468, Estes Park, Colorado 80517. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        (1) RTCA Secretariat, 1828 L Street, NW., Suite 805, Washington, DC 20036-5133; telephone (202) 833-9339; fax (202) 833-9434; Web site                         *http://www.rtca.org;*                         (2) Hosted by LFV Group-Swedish Airports and Air Navigation Services; Onsite Contact: Ana Paula Frangolho, telephone 2-729-4702; fax 2-9008.                     

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice is hereby given for a Special Committee 206 meeting/EUROCE WG 76. The agenda will include: 

#### • September 8

#### • September 9-11

#### • September 12

                    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space availability. With the approval of the chairmen, members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in the “                    **FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT**                    ” section. Members of the public may present a written statement to the committee at any time.                 

Issued in Washington, DC, on August 6, 2008. 

Francisco  C. Estrada, 

RTCA Advisory Committee.

[FR Doc. E8-18644 Filed 8-12-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
#### STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Larry NASON, Defendant/Appellant. Larry NASON, Movant/Appellant, *v.*STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.

Nos. 68753, 70633.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Feb. 25, 1997.

Gwenda R. Robinson, Assistant Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General, Stephen D. Hawke, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before DOWD, P.J., and REINHARD and GARY M. GAERTNER, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals after his conviction by a jury of one count of first degree burglary, § 569.160, RSMo 1994. The court sentenced him as a prior and persistent offender to a prison term of twenty years. Defendant also appeals the denial, without an evidentiary hearing, of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. We affirm.

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 *534reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 09-20215

D-12 ERNEST NEAL Honorable Sean F. Cox

Defendant.

_________________________________/

ORDER DETAINING DEFENDANT 

PENDING SENTENCING FOR SUPERVISED RELEASE VIOLATIONS

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3143, Defendant Ernest Neal having plead guilty to violations of

supervised release, including testing positive for controlled substances, IT IS ORDERED that

Defendant is DETAINED by the United States Marshals pending sentencing for the supervised

release violations. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

S/Sean F. Cox 

Sean F. Cox

United States District Judge

Dated: April 26, 2010

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on

April 26, 2010, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/Jennifer Hernandez 

Case Manager

Case 2:09-cr-20215-SFC-MKM ECF No. 316, PageID.1630 Filed 04/26/10 Page 1 of 1
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 Q Lotus Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Marckensie Theresias, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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, as amended (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 results of operations of the Company.





The foregoing statement is furnished pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 (as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002) and for no other reason.








/s/ Marckensie Theresias


Marckensie Theresias


Chief Executive Officer


November 15, 2010
#### Robert O. BRENHAM, Plaintiff, v. SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY, Defendant-Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SUTTON’S STEEL & SUPPLY, INC., et al., Third-Party Defendants-Appellees.

No. 72-1387

Summary Calendar.*

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 9, 1972.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 15, 1972.

Certiorari Denied Dec. 11, 1972.

See 93 S.Ct. 560.

Richard C. Meaux, Davidson, Meaux, Onebane & Donohoe, Lafayette, La., for plaintiff-appellant.

William 0. Bonin, Landry, Watkins, Cousin & Bonin, New Iberia, La., for third-party defendants-appellees.

Before THORNBERRY, COLEMAN and INGRAHAM, Circuit Judges.

*

 Rule 18, 5th Cir.; *see*Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Company of New York et al., 5th Cir. 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I.

PER CURIAM:

On the basis of the district court’s well-reasoned opinion, reported at 328 F.Supp. 119, on the issue of whether appellant was entitled to the right of contribution from appellees in the instant ease, we affirm. *Cf.*United States v. Moore, 3d Cir. 1972, 469 F.2d 788. See also Phillips v. Houston Fire & Casualty Insurance Company, W.D.La. 1963, 219 F.Supp. 420.
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-10367

Conference Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Paul Austin Jones, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4-19-CR-313-1

Before Jones, Clement, and Haynes, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Paul Austin 

Jones has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 

229 (5th Cir. 2011). Jones has not filed a response. We have reviewed 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 1, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-10367 Document: 00515881625 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/01/2021
No. 20-10367

2

counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We 

concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous 

issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to 

withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities 

herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

Case: 20-10367 Document: 00515881625 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/01/2021
179 La. 289

#### STATE ex rel. HARTMANN et ux. v. HARTMANN.

No. 32050.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 26, 1934.

Waverly A. Henning, of New Orleans, for appellants.

ftobert E. O’Connor, of New Orleans, for appellee.

O’NIELL, Chief Justice.

 This is a habeas corpus proceeding, by which the parents of a girl, ten years of age, are ashing to have the child returned to them by her paternal aunt. The child was given into the care of the aunt by the parents, informally, when the child was only four months of age, and has been properly cared for by the aunt ever since. The reason why the parents gave the child to the aunt was that the child’s mother was afflicted with an infirmity which caused her shoulder to become dislocated, frequently, and without violence or apparent cause. Another result of the infirmity was that the mother was extremely nervous, and had violent spells of hysteria whenever her shoulder became dislocated. She underwent a surgical operation at a hospital, but the surgeons could not discover the cause of the trouble, or cure it. Her condition was much improved at the time of the trial of the case; but the judge, evidently, did not consider her physically able to take care of the child. She also was physically unsound, having been afflicted with what the doctors termed a heart murmur. Her condition also was much improved, if in fact she was not entirely relieved of the heart murmur, at the time of the trial. But she was very nervous, and unwilling and afraid to return to her parents. For these reasons, the judge refused to compel the aunt to give up to the parents the care of the child. Having heard the witnesses, and having seen the condition of the mother and child, the judge was in a better position than we are to determine whether it was safe to return the child to her parents. More than a year has elapsed since the case was tried; and it may be that the condition of the mother and child is such now that the child should be returned to the mother. The parents are, undoubtedly, entitled to have the care and guardianship of the child when the mother is able to care for the child, and when it will not endanger the health of the child to be with the mother. The aunt is encouraging the child to visit the parents, and to have an affection for them. The facts disclosed by the record do not justify our interfering at this time with such a serious and delicate situation.

The judgment is affirmed.

ST. PAUL, J„ absent.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

** **

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

** **

Pursuant to U.S.C. Section 1350 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350,Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officersof Arcade Acquisition Corp. (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to suchofficer’s knowledge, that:

 

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscalyear ended March 31, 2008 of the Company fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 10-Q fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 
| Dated: May 14,  2008 |   | /s/ Jonathan Furer      |
|---------------------------|--------|-------------------------|
|                      |   | Jonathan Furer          |
|                      |   | Chief Executive Officer |
|                      |   |                    |
|                      |   | /s/ John Chapman        |
|                      |   | John Chapman            |
|                      |   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
#### James POLK, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.

No. 68409.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Feb. 27, 1996.

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

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Jill C. LaHue, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

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

PER CURIAM.

Defendant pled guilty to first degree tampering, § 569.080, RSMo 1994. The trial court imposed a sentence of fourteen years imprisonment.

Defendant appeals the denial, for untimely filing, of his Rule 24.085 motion. We affirm.

The motion court properly denied defendant’s Rule 24.035 motion. The trial court sentenced defendant on June 21,1995, ordering that he immediately be transported to the Missouri Department of Corrections. Defendant did not file his *pro se*motion until December 29, 199J, well outside the 90-day time limit.

The time limits contained in Rule 24.035 are mandatory. Rule 24.035(b). The supreme court has held them to be constitutionally valid and reasonable. *Day v. State,*770 S.W.2d 692, 695 (Mo. banc 1989).

The motion court’s judgment is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. No error of law appears. An opinion would have no precedential value. Rule 84.16(b).

The motion court’s judgment is affirmed.
#### OTTIS M. McCONNELL et al. v. R. B. STELLWAGON et al.*

No. 4092.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

March 16, 1932.

Thornton, Gist *&*Richey and Leo Gold, all of Alexandria, and Hugh M. Wilkinson, of New Orleans, for appellants.

Hawthorn, Stafford & Pitts, of Alexandria, for appellees.

*

Rehearing denied May 4, 1982.

DREW, J.

For the reasons assigned in case No. 4093, styled John H. McDonald et al. v. R. B. Stellwagon et al., 140 So. 133, this day decided by this court, the judgment of the lower court, in so far as it awarded judgment against J. H. Gilbert, is reversed, and the demands of -plaintiffs against J. H. Gilbert are rejected, at plaintiffs’ cost.

The award of $10,000 given plaintiffs against R. -B. Stellwagon, we think, is in ac*139cord with the jurisprudence, of this state, and the same will not be disturbed; therefore, the judgment, in all other respects, is affirmed.