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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
Note:  This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 1997 and is qualified in its entirety
by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0001029315
<NAME> PAYCO GENERAL AMERICAN CREDITS INC
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          30,168
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   24,118
<ALLOWANCES>                                       996
<INVENTORY>                                     48,690
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               111,168
<PP&E>                                          89,528
<DEPRECIATION>                                  54,820
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 348,816
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           60,089
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     11,249
<COMMON>                                            53
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   348,816
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               130,126
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  137,437
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              13,797
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (21,108)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (6,829)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (14,279)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (14,279)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      (0)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      (0)
        
<PAGE>

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 3(a)

Peoples Energy Corporation

Resolutions Amending By-Laws

 

 

RESOLVED, That, effective as of the close of business on April 2, 2003, Section 3.3 of Article III of the By-Laws of the Company be, and hereby is, amended to read in its entirety as follows:

SECTION 3.3 Special Meetings. Special meetings of the Board may be called at any time by the Chairman of the Board, the Lead Director, or by any two directors, by causing the Secretary to send by personal delivery, mail, overnight courier, telegram or facsimile, to each director, not less than three days before the time of such meeting, a written notice stating the time and place of such meeting. Notice of any meeting of the Board may be waived by any director.

 

Dated as of: 		April 2, 2003		
 

 

 

RESOLVED, That, effective June 4, 2003, Section 3.1 of Article III of the By-Laws of the Company be, and hereby is, amended to increase the number of members constituting the Board of Directors from ten to eleven.

 

Dated as of: 		June 4, 2003
#### Patrick S. CRUISE, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, Respondent.

No. 02-3188.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Oct. 17, 2002.

*ORDER*

On September 12, 2002, this court dismissed Patrick S. Cruise’s petition for review for failure to file a corrected Fed. Cir. R. 15(c) statement by September 3, 2002. This court received Cruise’s corrected Fed. Cir. R. 15(c) statement on September 9.

Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

Cruise is granted an extension of time to file the corrected Fed. Cir. R. 15(c) statement. The mandate is recalled, this court’s September 12 order is vacated, and the petition for review is reinstated. The Department of the Treasury should calculate the due date for its brief from the date of filing of this order.
#### WILLIS v. DYER.

No. 4557.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

June 5, 1933.

Peterman, Dear & Peterman, of Alexandria, for appellant.

Newman *&*Jones, of Leesville, for appellee.

MILLS, Judge.

Plaintiff and appellee, Mrs. D. H. Willis, Jr., moves to dismiss the appeal in this case on the ground that the transcript was not filed in this court until after the return date fixed by the trial court.

The order granting defendant and appellant a devolutive appeal made the appeal returnable Wednesday, February 15, 1933. The record shows that the transcript was not ■ filed until February 24, 1933. It does not show that any extension of time was granted, nor is any adequate legal cause assigned for the delay.

Where appellant fails to file the transcript on return day, or within the three judicial days thereafter, the law leaves the court no alternative.

The appeal must be and is dismissed.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 167 (Wednesday, August 27, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 50630]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-19805]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Cancer Institute; Amended Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the 
Subcommittee I--Career Development, September 30, 2008, 8 a.m. to 
October 1, 2008, 5 p.m., Crowne Plaza National Airport, 1480 Crystal 
Drive, Arlington, VA, 22202 which was published in the Federal Register 
on August 8, 2008, 73 FR 46308.
    This meeting is amended to change the meeting date to September 30, 
2008. The meeting is closed to the public.

    Dated: August 20, 2008.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. E8-19805 Filed 8-26-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
NUMBER 13-21-00391-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG 

____________________________________________________________

JASON OMAR MORENO, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 92nd District Court 

of Hidalgo County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Hinojosa, Tijerina, and Silva

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Silva

This cause is before the Court on Appellant’s Motion for New Appeal and Motion 

for Appointment of Counsel. We previously reviewed and affirmed the convictions which 

appellant is attempting to appeal. See Moreno v. State, 987 S.W.2d 195 (Tex. App.—

Corpus Christi–Edinburg 1999, pet. ref’d).
2

On November 12, 2021, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that it appeared 

the appeal was not timely perfected in this matter. Appellant was further informed the 

appeal would be dismissed if the defect was not corrected within ten days from the date 

of receipt of the Court’s directive. In response, appellant filed a motion for new appeal 

which does not cure the defect, as the notice of appeal is more than twenty years late.

This Court's appellate jurisdiction in a criminal case is invoked by a timely filed 

notice of appeal. Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). Absent a 

timely filed notice of appeal, a court of appeals does not obtain jurisdiction to address the 

merits of the appeal in a criminal case and can take no action other than to dismiss the 

appeal for want of jurisdiction. Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 

1998). Appellant may be entitled to an out-of-time appeal by filing a post-conviction writ 

of habeas corpus returnable to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals; however, the 

availability of that remedy is beyond the jurisdiction of this Court. See TEX. CODE CRIM.

PROC. ANN. art. 11.07, § 3(a); see also Ex parte Garcia, 988 S.W.2d 240 (Tex. Crim. App. 

1999).

Accordingly, appellant’s motion for a new appeal and motion for appointment of 

counsel are dismissed for want of jurisdiction, and this appeal is dismissed for lack of 

jurisdiction.

CLARISSA SILVA

Justice

Do not publish. 

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed on the

3rd day of February, 2022.
Exhibit 10.10
  
 Agreement Company Bank
 BACKGROUND
 Loan Agreement
   AMENDMENTS TO THE LOAN AGREEMENT
 Applicable Margin Section 1.1
 Applicable Margin
  Fixed Charge Coverage Ratio
 Intercreditor Agreement
 Security Agreement
 Third Amendment




---



##### 



Minimum Net Worth
   Leverage Ratio
  Fixed Charge Coverage Ratio .
 2




---



##### 



Collateral Documents
  provided, however
 REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES TRUE; NO EVENT OF DEFAULT
    3




---



##### 



CONDITIONS TO EFFECTIVENESS
      4




---



##### 



GUARANTORS ACKNOWLEDGMENT
 REFERENCE TO THE LOAN AGREEMENT
   EXECUTION IN COUNTERPARTS
 GOVERNING LAW; BINDING EFFECT
  5




---



##### 



HEADINGS
 WAIVER OF JURY TRIAL
 ENTIRE AGREEMENT
  
 6




---



##### 



SPARTECH CORPORATIONBy:Name:
    
    Randy C. MartinTitle:
    
    Executive Vice President and 
Chief
Financial OfficerCALYON NEW YORK BRANCHBy:Name:
    
    Blake WrightTitle:
    
    Managing DirectorBy:Name:
Title:
    
    Joseph PhilbinDirector
 7




---



##### 



By:
    
    Spartech Corporation, its sole member
 
 By:
    
    Spartech Corporation, its sole member
  By:
    
    Polymer Extruded Products, Inc., its sole member
  By:
    
    Spartech Corporation, its sole member
 
 By:
    
    Spartech Mexico Holding Company, its sole member
 
 By:
    
    Spartech Industries, Inc., its sole member
 By:Randy C. MartinVice President for all of the above
 8
#### Gregory Leon HAMMER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ronald J. ANGELONE, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 02-6950.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 24, 2002.

Decided Nov. 6, 2002.

Gregory Leon Hammer, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. Anderson, III, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Gregory Leon Hammer seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). We have reviewed the record and conclude on the reasoning of the district court that Hammer has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. *See Hammer v. Angelone,*No. CA-01-374-7 (W.D.Va. Apr. 26, 2002). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
EXHIBIT 31(a)

I, Thomas M. Patrick, certify that:

1.	I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of North Shore Gas Company;

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(s) 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 (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(s) 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:  May 10, 2005

  /s/  Thomas M. Patrick
Cite as 2014 Ark. 357



## SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS

IN RE ARKANSAS BAR EXAMINATION FEE Opinion Delivered September 4, 2014

PER CURIAM The Board of Law Examiners (Board) has made request to this Court for an increase in the fee for the Arkansas Bar Examination. The fee for the Bar Examination was last set at $400 by the court in a per curiam delivered November 30, 2006, effective for the July 2007
Exam. See In re Rules Governing Admission to the Bar of Arkansas , 368 Ark. App’x 698 (2006) (per curiam). Since that time, there have been increases in many expenses associated with the administration of the Bar Exam. As such, the Board unanimously recommended that the fee be increased to $500, effective with the February 2015 Arkansas Bar Exam. The fee will still be one of the lowest in the nation. We agree with the Board’s recommendation. Therefore, in line with Rule XI of the Rules Governing Admission to the Bar, the examination fee for the general Arkansas Bar Examination is set at $500, effective with the February 2015 Bar Exam.
#### RICE WINDOW MFG. CO. v. EVANS et al.

Supreme Court of Florida. Division A.

March 16, 1954.

Harry W. Prebish, Miami, for appellant.

Herbert N. Schwarz, Miami, for appel-lees.

MATPIEWS, Justice.

.This.is an appeal from an order sustaining exceptions to the report of- the Special Master with reference to a claim for labor and materials which constituted the final decree. -

It appears that the -Patrician Hotel, located upon certain real estate in Dade County, was repaired and improved by the appellant at the request of S. E. Schwartz and Ruth Schwartz, his wife. Abe Kurman and Nettie Kurman, his wife, were co-owners of the property with Anne Evans Capps. The case was dismissed as to-all of them. During the proceedings a.claim for lien on the property was released when the Schwartzes filed a bond, as. principal, with the All Florida Surety Company, as surety, in lieu of the lien and an order of the Court was entered transferring the lien' to the bond. An amended 'bill -of complaint was then filed whereby the Schwartzes and the All Florida Surety Company were joined as parties-defendants.

The Master found from the evidence that the contract with the appellant, was made by Mr. and Mrs. Schwartz; that the Schwartzes were lessees of the property, had assumed the duty of making the repairs, and were in possession of the property when contract to repair was, made ; that the bond was given by Schwartz and wife as principals; that F.S. Section 84.24, F.S.A., provides .for the giving of such bond by the *owner*and that when Schwartz and wife gave such bond, with the approval of the Court, they represented themselves to be the owners and could not have given the bond except by claiming to be owners of the property.

It is certainly borne out by this record that Schwartz and wife held themselves out as b'eipg the-owners of the property. It was under such ■‘representation that a bond was given to release the property from the claim of lien, and they are now estopped from denying that they are owners for the purpose in question and for the enforcement of the lien against the bond which was substituted- in lieu of any interest in the property. :It is likewise clear that there was a misapplication ,of the law -to the facts in sustaining, the. exceptions to the Master’s Report.

*165It is ordered that the order sustaining thé exceptions to the Master’s Report be -set aside and that a proper order- and final decree be entered in accordance with this opinion.

Reversed.

ROBERTS, C. J., and TERRELL and SEBRING, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000075448
<NAME> NSTOR TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           1,044<F1>
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,705
<ALLOWANCES>                                       260
<INVENTORY>                                      3,182
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 8,324
<PP&E>                                           9,846<F2>
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,557<F3>
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  16,613
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,524
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           934
<OTHER-SE>                                       2,582
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    16,613
<SALES>                                          9,344
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 9,384
<CGS>                                            7,685
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    6,472
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 481
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (6,036)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (6,036)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (6,036)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.32)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Cash balance includes $1,024 of restricted cash (see note 3 to consolidated
financial statements).
<F2>PP&E balance includes $6,892 of intangible assets.
<F3>Accumulated depreciation balance includes $695 of accumulated amortization.
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
Exhibit 10(p)

Contract No. 117164

 

NATURAL GAS PIPELINE COMPANY OF AMERICA (NATURAL)

STORAGE RATE SCHEDULE DSS

AGREEMENT DATED March 9, 2000

 

1.	SHIPPER is: NORTH SHORE GAS COMPANY, a SHIPPER.

2.	(a) MDQ totals: 35,000 MMBtu per day.

    (b) MSV totals: 1,750,000 MMBtu.

    (c) The primary Delivery Point(s) and associated MDQ(s) are contained in Exhibit B attached hereto and are a part of this Agreement.

3.	TERM: May 1, 2000 through April 30, 2003.

4.	[ ] This Agreement supersedes and cancels a ____________ Agreement dated ___________.

[X]	Service and reservation charges commence the latter of:

(a) May 1, 2000, and

(b) the date capacity to provide the service hereunder is available on Natural's System.

[ ]	Other:_____________________________________________
Exhibit 32.2
                                                                    ------------

                      Statement of Chief Financial Officer
         Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code

         Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code, the
undersigned, Mark W. Simon, the Senior Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer of Penn Engineering & Manufacturing Corp. (the "Company"), hereby
certifies that to his knowledge:

         1.       The Company's Form 10-Q Quarterly Report for the period ended
                  September 30, 2004 (the "Report") fully complies with the
                  requirements of Section 13(a) 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 results of
                  operations of the Company.

Dated:  November 9, 2004

                                                  /s/ Mark W. Simon
                                                  -------------------------
                                                  Mark W.  Simon
                                                  Senior Vice President and
                                                  Chief Financial Officer


         A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided by the Company and will be
retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.