alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 Homeland Security

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency 

          - [FEMA-1771-DR] 

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS. 

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Illinois (FEMA-1771-DR), dated June 24, 2008, and related determinations. 

# DATES:

*Effective Date:*                         August 8, 2008.                     

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3886. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the President's June 30, 2008, amended declaration authorizing Federal funds for emergency protective measures, including direct Federal assistance, at 90 percent Federal funding of total eligible costs under the Public Assistance program, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Weather Service River Forecast Center has established that the rivers in the State of Illinois, which have experienced historical flooding, fell below flood stage on August 6, 2008. 

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs, 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.) 

R. David Paulison, 

Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

[FR Doc. E8-19016 Filed 8-15-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110-10-P
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
EXHIBIT 12.1

                             SUMMIT PROPERTIES INC.
               CALCULATION OF RATIOS OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                             (DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31,
                                                    2002       2001      2000       1999       1998
                                                  ---------- --------- ---------- ---------  ---------
<S>                                                <C>       <C>        <C>       <C>        <C>

Income before minority interest of
   unitholders in Operating Partnership            $115,928  $ 77,316   $ 86,813  $ 59,760   $ 66,475
Interest:
   Expense incurred                                  34,493    39,854     38,649    37,282     32,550
   Amortization of deferred financing costs           1,254     1,404      1,072       992        956
   Rental fixed charges                                 287       291        280       159        133
                                                  ---------- --------- ---------- ---------  ---------
   Total                                           $151,962  $118,865   $126,814  $ 98,193   $100,114
                                                  ========== ========= ========== =========  =========

Fixed charges:
   Interest expense                                $ 34,493  $ 39,854   $ 38,649  $ 37,282    $32,550
   Interest capitalized                              10,360    11,080     11,117     7,888      6,143
   Dividends to preferred unitholders in
     operating partnership                           12,420    12,420     12,420     6,698          -
   Rental fixed charges                                 287       291        280       159        133
   Amortization of deferred financing costs           1,254     1,404      1,072       992        956
                                                  ---------- --------- ---------- ---------  ---------
     Total                                         $ 58,814  $ 65,049   $ 63,538  $ 53,019   $ 39,782
                                                  ========== ========= ========== =========  =========

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                     2.58      1.83       1.99      1.85       2.52
                                                  ========== ========= ========== =========  =========
</TABLE>
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-15-0000331 30-NOV-2015 08:45 AM
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A16D0238. TERESA WITTINGHAM v. ANDREW G. WITTINGHAM.

Teresa Wittingham and Andrew Wittingham were divorced in 2007. Teresa

subsequently filed a modification of support action. After three years of litigation,

Teresa dismissed her petition. Andrew requested and was awarded attorney fees

related to his defense of the action. Teresa then filed this application for discretionary

appeal in this Court. We, however, lack jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court of Georgia has jurisdiction over all divorce and alimony

cases, including those cases ancillary to the divorce proceedings. See Ga. Const. of

1983, Art. VI, Sec. VI, Par. III (6); Morris v. Surges, 284 Ga. 748, 750 (2) (670 SE2d

84) (2008); see also Williams v. Cooper, 280 Ga. 145 (625 SE2d 754) (2006)

(Supreme Court decided appeal from attorney fee award arising out of contempt

proceeding to enforce a support obligation). As the underlying subject matter of this

application is child support and/or alimony, it is hereby TRANSFERRED to the

Supreme Court for disposition.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

02/09/2016

February 09, 2016
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

**COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,**

**Respondent**

**v.**

**RONALD FLAMER,**

**Petitioner :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 295 EAL 2015** 

**Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 8th day of December, 2015, the Petition for Al lowance of Appeal** 

**is** DENIED

**.**
DLD

- 138 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 12

- 3989

_____________

EDWARD P. SEMULKA,

Appellant

v.

STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA;
PA BAR ASSOCIATION;

PA STATE POLI CE; SHANNON SWORSKI;
CHEVRON INC.; UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH;
PITTSBURGH POLICE; UNION TOWNSHIP POLICE

__________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civi l No. 12

- cv

- 00713 ) District Judge: Honorable David S. Cercone

______________________________________

Submitted on a Motion to Reopen, and for Possible Dismissal
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or Summary Action

Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

February 28, 2013

Before: AMBRO, SMITH and CHAGARES, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed : March 14, 2013 )

_________

OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM

Edward P. Semulka appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the2

Western District of Pennsylvania, which granted his motion for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis (“IFP”) and dismissed his complaint as frivolous. 1 We grant his motion to proceed in

forma pauperis and to reopen the appeal and to file a motion to reopen out of time. 2 However,

we will dismiss the appeal as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).

We have reviewed the complaint and the District Court’s order dismissing the

complaint. We agree with th e District Court that the complaint is rambling and fails to present

any colorable legal basis for relief. We also agree that his claims are time

- barred by the

applicable statutes of limitations.

In his Argument Supporting Appeal, Semulka does not indica te why he believes the

District Court erred in dismissing his complaint as frivolous. Instead, he simply repeats his

claims and attempts to add new claims, which is not allowed on appeal. In re Reliant Energy

Channelview LP , 594 F.3d 200, 209 (3d Cir. 20 10) . We will thus dismiss the appeal as

frivolous.

1 Although the District Court cited 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), that appears to be a typographical error, as subsection “e” is the section that provides for dismissing a complaint as frivolous.

2 Semulka has de monstrated the inability to pay the fees on appeal. See Walker v. People Express
Airlines, Inc. , 886 F.2d 598, 601 (3d Cir. 1989). We thus grant the application to proceed IFP. Although a motion to reopen must generally be filed within ten days of the d ate of dismissal, see Third Circuit LAR Misc. 107.2(a), Semulka has filed a motion for leave to file the motion to reopen out of time. He indicates that he has a disability that makes it difficult to comply with the deadlines. In this
instance, we will e xcuse the lateness of the motion to reopen. For the same reason, we find that Semulka has shown good cause for failing to timely file his motion to proceed IFP and that reopening

is thus warranted.
Document

AMENDMENT TO THE
AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT




        This Amendment (“Amendment”) is entered into as of the 17th day of February 2020, by and between Home Bank, N.A. (the “Bank”) and Joseph B. Zanco (the “Executive”).


WITNESSETH


        WHEREAS, the Bank and the Executive previously entered into an Amended and Restated Employment Agreement, dated as of May 20, 2019 (the “Agreement”); and


        WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend the Agreement in order to (i) extend its term for an additional year, as provided in Sections 2(a) and (b) and (ii) make certain revisions to Clauses (A) and (B) of Section 5(f).


        NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto, intending to be legally bound hereby, agree as follows:


1.The last sentence in Section 2(a) of the Agreement is amended and restated to read as follows: “The terms and conditions of this Agreement shall be and remain in effect during the period beginning on the Effective Date of this Agreement and ending on May 20, 2022, plus such additional extensions, if any, as are provided pursuant to Section 2(b) hereof (the “Employment Period”).”


2.Clause (A) of Section 5(f) of the Agreement is amended and restated to read as follows: “pay to the Executive, in a lump sum as of the Date of Termination (or if applicable, the later date of a Change in Control), a cash severance amount equal to two (2) times his Annual Compensation, and”.


3.The reference to “twelve (12) months” in Clause (B)(i) of Section 5(f) is amended and restated to read “twenty-four (24) months”.


4.Except to the extent expressly amended hereby, the Agreement shall continue unmodified and shall remain in full force and effect.


        IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment has been duly executed by the parties hereto as of the day and year first written above.


                     HOME BANK, N. A.




             By:   /s/ John W. Bordelon   
                     John W. Bordelon
                     President and Chief Executive Officer


                      EXECUTIVE




                       /s/ Joseph B. Zanco   
                      Joseph B. Zanco
## THEATI-ORNEYGENEEZAL OFTEXAS AUSTIN. TEXAS 78711 November 15, 1963 Honorable William H. Hunter Cninion NO.c-178 District Attorney 69th Judicial District Dalhart, Texas Re: Dear Mr. Hunter: Construction of HouseBill 3959 Acts 196& 58th Leg,p R.S., Ch. 327, pa 857. Weare in receipt of your request for opinion regarding our construction of HouseBill 395 of the 58th Legislature, codified as Article 6252-14 of Vernon’s Civil Statutes. TheCommissioners’ Court of Deaf Smith County is considering the establishment of a retirement program for county employees age 65 anddesires our opinion in connection with HouseBill 395.

HouseBill 395 of the 58th Legislature states as follows:

“Section 1. It is hereby declared to be the policy of the State of Texas that Donerson shall be denied the iaht to wo rk, to earn a living, and to support himielf andhis family solely because of &ggo

“Sec. 2. & agency, board, commission, department, or institution of the government of the State of Texas, nor anygplitical subdivision of the Stcitizen of this Stat: be denied employment by any such agency, board, commission, department or institution or any political subdivision of the State of Texas solely because of age; provided. hovever. not,-

not aonlv to institutions of higher education with established retirement rwoRramsqll (Emphasis added) In Section 1 of the statute in question the Legislature has declared it to be the policy of the State that no person shall be refused employment solely because of age. Seetion 2 of the Act places maximumandminimumlimits on the State or it8 subdivisions -872-Hon. William H. Hunter, page 2 (C-178)

in using age alone as a Commissioners~ Court of basis for denial of employment. Since the Deaf Smith County does not desire to place the maximumage limit under sixty-five years of age, it is clear that they maydo so within the provisions of HouseBill 395’
. The only restriction on the maximumage limit which they must consider in the establishment of their retirement program 1s~that the age for conrnulsorg retirement cannot be under sixty-five years.

TheCommissionersP Court of Deaf Smith County mayestablish a retirement program for county employees as long as the age for compulsory retirement is not under sixty-five years, Articie 6252-14, V.C.S.

F'DW:wb APPROVEDs OPINIONCOMMITTEE W.V. Geppert, Chairman Malcolm Quick MaryK. Wall JamesM. Strock Yours very truly, WAGGONER CARR Attorney Gener

Fred D. Ward Assistant

APPROVED

FORTHEATTORNEY

GENERAL BYs Stanton Stone

..
| **Exhibit 23.1** |
|------------------|

 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-142712 and Registration Statement No. 333-55836 on Forms S-8, and Registration Statement No. 333-116972, as amended, on Form S-3, of our reports dated December 9, 2008, relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule of The Pantry, Inc., and the effectiveness of The Pantry, Inc.’s internal        control over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of The Pantry, Inc., for the year ended September 25, 2008.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

Charlotte, North Carolina

December 9, 2008
Motion Granted and Reinstatement Order filed February 6, 2018. 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-16-00633-CV

____________

WAUGHSUP, LLC, JOSEPH MARTIN, CALTECH MANAGEMENT, INC., 

AND TURNO INTERNATIONAL, INC., Appellants

V.

CHARLES WATKINS AND PAULA DAVILA, Appellees

On Appeal from the 269th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2012-64701

REINSTATEMENT ORDER

Appellee, Charles Watkins, petitioned for voluntary bankruptcy in the 

United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas, under cause 

number 17-33611. Because a stay is automatically effected by Section 362(a) of 

the Bankruptcy Code, when this court received notice of appellee’s bankruptcy 

filing, on June 15, 2017, we stayed all proceedings in the appeal. See Tex. R. App. 

P. 8.2. 
On January 31, 2018, appellants filed a motion to reinstate the appeal 

pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 8.3(a). Attached to the motion is a 

true copy of the bankruptcy court’s order dismissing the bankruptcy case.

The motion is granted. Accordingly, the case is ordered REINSTATED and 

placed on the court’s active docket. 

Appellees’ brief is due to be filed with the clerk of this court on or before 

March 8, 2018.

PER CURIAM
EXHIBIT 31.2

                                 CERTIFICATIONS

I, Pramila Devi Shaheed, certify that:

1.  I have reviewed this Form 10-Q of Levcor International, 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 officer 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)) 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 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; 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 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 the audit committee of the 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
    control over financial reporting.

Date:  August 13, 2007                      /s/ Pramila Devi Shaheed
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Pramila Devi Shaheed
                                            Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit








Exhibit 10.49




[APOLLO GLOBAL MANAGEMENT LETTERHEAD]




[Name]
[Address]




Dear [ ],


Reference is hereby made to the engagement letter (the “Engagement Letter”) that you executed with Apollo Global Management, Inc. (the “Company”) in connection with your service as a director on the board of directors (the “Board”) of the Company.  We are pleased to inform you that, effective as of the date hereof, your base annual compensation for service as a member of the Conflicts Committee of the Board shall increase to $20,000 per year.  [Additionally, your annual compensation for service as the chairperson of the Conflicts Committee shall increase to $20,000 per year.]  Any fees you receive for your service as a member of the Board and as a member of any other committees of the Board remain unchanged.


We hope you are pleased with this new compensation package.  If you are in agreement with the foregoing, please so indicate by signing this letter where indicated below.


        
Very truly yours,


APOLLO GLOBAL MANAGEMENT, INC.


By:      _______________________________
Name:
Title: 

Accepted and agreed:


________________________ 

 
Dated: ____________ ___, 2020
#### James William JONES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Peter J. PITCHESS, Sheriff of Los An-geles County, Pat Shields, Sergeant in L. A. County Sheriff’s Dept., Real Party in Interest, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 72-1672.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Nov. 15, 1972.

James William Jones, in pro. per.

John D. Maharg, County Counsel, Michael H. Dougherty, Deputy County Counsel, Los Angeles, Cal., for defendants-appellees.

Before MERRILL, CHOY and WALLACE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Jones, an inmate at a California state prison, appeals the dismissal of his civil *679rights complaint. The complaint was dismissed because Jones failed to state sufficient facts to entitle him to relief under the Civil Rights Act 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1988.

A dismissal of a complaint without dismissing the action is not a final order under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 because the complaint is still open to amendment. The complaint was deficient because it contained only unsupported conclusionary allegations. No “special circumstances” here indicate that the complaint could not be cured by amendment. Hurst v. State of California, 451 F.2d 350 (9th Cir. 1971). Therefore, the order appealed from is not an appealable order. Jackson v. Nelson, 405 F.2d 872, 873 (9th Cir. 1968). Accordingly the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.1 Hemstreet v. Schade, 459 F.2d 49 (9th Cir. 1972).

1

. In so far as this court might be said to have jurisdiction because part of the district court’s order denied injunctive relief from a “continuing false imprisonment,” it is clear that release from custody is not available in a civil rights action. Peinado v. Adult Authority, 405 F.2d 1185 (9th Cir. 1969). The complaint alleges no exhaustion of state remedies and therefore the action could not be considered ns one brought for a writ of habeas corpus. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b).
#### Mutual National Bank of Chicago, a National Banking Association, as Trustee Under the Provisions of a Trust Agreement Dated March 30, 1960, and Known as Trust No. 3385, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. City of Chicago, a Municipal Corporation, Defendant-Appellant.

Gen. No. 50,578.

First District, Second Division.

September 20, 1966.

Raymond F. Simon, Corporation Counsel, of Chicago (Sydney R. Drebin and Marsile J. Hughes, Assistant Corporation Counsel, of counsel), for appellant; Haskins, Maguire *&*Haskins, of Chicago (Robert E. Haskins and C. W. Eckert, of counsel), for appellee.

Opinion by

JUSTICE LYONS.

Not to be published in full.
#### Harry L. Doersh, Respondent, v. Lake Keuka Navigation Company, Appellant.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. All concurred.