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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated financial statements for the period ended May 1, 1999 and
is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statments.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-01-1999
<CASH>                                            6248
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   110272
<ALLOWANCES>                                      2755
<INVENTORY>                                      64414
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                185004
<PP&E>                                          277965
<DEPRECIATION>                                   66319
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  553238
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           101439
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            50000
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         20738
<OTHER-SE>                                      144304
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    553238
<SALES>                                         364738
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                364738
<CGS>                                           299475
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   322883
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                7901
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  33954
<INCOME-TAX>                                     13692
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              20262
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     20262
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.75<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.70<F2>
<FN>
<F1>Represents Basic earnings per share in accordance with SFAS No. 128,
Earnings per Share.
<F2>Represents diluted earnings per share in accordance with SFAS No. 128,
Earnings per Share.
</FN>


</TABLE>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In re: SIDNEY T. SCARLETT,

______________________________

SIDNEY T. SCARLETT,

Appellant,

v.

DEVIN DERHAM

- BURK, Chapter 13

trustee,

Appellee. No. 17

- 15799

D.C. No. 5:16

- cv

- 05371

- LHK

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Lucy H. Koh, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 27 , 2018 **

Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

Sidney T. Scarlett appeals pro se from the district court’ s order dismissing

his bankruptcy appeal for f ailure to prosecute

. We have juris diction under 28

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

DEC 3 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 17

- 15799

U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion

. Ahanchian v. Xenon

Pictures , Inc. , 624 F.3d 1253, 1258 (9th Cir. 2010) (denial of extension of time) ;

Moneymaker v. CoBEN (In re Eisen) , 31 F.3d 1447, 1451 (9th Cir. 1994)

( dismissal for failure to prosecute). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Scarlett a further

extension of time and dismissing Scarlett’s bankruptcy appeal for failure to

prosecute after it granted him two extension s of time to file the opening brief and

warned that failure to file an opening brief by the extended due dat e w ould result in

dismissal of his appeal

. See In re Eisen

, 31 F.3d at 1451

- 56 (discussing factors for

district court to weigh in determining whether to di smiss for failure to prosecute;

noting that dismissal should not be disturbed unless there is a definite and firm

conviction that the court below committed a clear error of judgment in the

conclusion it reached upon a w eighing of the relevant factors (citations and in ternal

quotation marks omitted) ).

T h e district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Scarlett’s motion

for reconsideration because Scarlett failed to establish any b asis for relief. See Sch.

Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc. , 5 F.3d 1255, 1262

- 63 (9th Cir.

1993) (setting forth standa rd of review and grounds for reconsideration).

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 3.1


                            Certificate of Amendment
                                     to the
                      Restated Certificate of Incorporation
                                       of
                            nStor Technologies, Inc.
                             a Delaware Corporation

     Pursuant to the Delaware General Corporation Law Section 242, the Amendment
to the Restated  Certificate of  Incorporation  of nSTOR  TECHNOLOGIES,  INC., a
Delaware corporation (the "Corporation") is hereby amended as follows:

     1.  Subsection  (a) of  Article  Fourth  of  the  Restated  Certificate  of
Incorporation  of the Corporation is hereby amended and restated in its entirety
to read as follows:

          "(a) The total number of shares which the Corporation is authorized to
          issue  is Two  Hundred  and  Thirty  One  Million  (231,000,000).  The
          Corporation  is  authorized  to issue  two  classes  of  shares  to be
          designated,  respectively,  "Preferred  Stock" and "Common Stock." The
          number of shares of  Preferred  Stock  authorized  to be issued is One
          Million   (1,000,000)  and  the  number  of  shares  of  Common  Stock
          authorized   to  be  issued  is  Two   Hundred   and  Thirty   Million
          (230,000,000).  The Preferred Stock shall have a par value of $.01 per
          share and the Common  Stock  shall have a par value of $.05 per share.
          The  aggregate  par value of all shares of Preferred  Stock is $10,000
          and  the  aggregate  par  value  of all  shares  of  Common  Stock  is
          $11,500,000.

     Except as set forth above, the Restated Certificate of Incorporation of the
Corporation shall remain unchanged.

     The foregoing amendment to the Restated Certificate of Incorporation of the
Corporation was duly proposed,  adopted and approved by the members of the Board
of  Directors of the  Corporation  on September 2, 2002 and by a majority of the
Stockholders  of the  Corporation  on October 8, 2002,  pursuant to the Delaware
General  Corporation  Law.  The number of votes  cast in favor of the  foregoing
amendment by the Stockholders was sufficient for approval of the amendment.

     This amendment shall be effective at the time of filing of this Certificate
of Amendment.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned officer of the Corporation has executed
this Certificate of Amendment on October 8, 2002.



                                          nSTOR TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

                                         By: /s/ Jack Jaiven
                                         Name: Jack Jaiven
                                         Title: Vice President
#### Peter Skontos, a/k/a Panagiotis Skoundrianos, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John C. Gekas, et al., and Nikitas Nomikos, a/k/a Nick Nomikos; and Steven P. Gianakas, a/k/a Stavros Gianakakis, Defendants-Appellees.

Gen. No. 49,383.

First District, Third Division.

June 16, 1966.

Affirmed.

Peter S. Sarelas, of Chicago, for appellant; John C. Gekas, of Chicago, for appellees.

Opinion by

JUSTICE SCHWARTZ.

Not to be published in full.
CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT



I,  R.  Ian  Rigg,  Chief  Financial  Officer  of Mercer International Inc. (the
"Company"),  certify  pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
18  U.S.C.  Section  1350,  that:

  (1)  the  Quarterly  Report  on  Form  10-Q  of the Company for the quarterly
       period  ended June  30, 2002  (the  "Report")  fully  complies  with the
       requirements of Section 13(a) 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  results  of operations of the
       Company.

Dated:  August  13,  2002


                                                     /s/  R.  Ian  Rigg
                                                     -------------------------
                                                     R.  Ian  Rigg
                                                     Chief  Financial  Officer
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

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

 

Inconnection with this Quarterly Report of The Pep Boys - Manny, Moe &Jack (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ending November 3,2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”),

 

I,Harry F. Yanowitz, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

 

(i)                                     TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished tothe Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

 
| Date:  December 18, 2007 |   | by: /s/ Harry F. Yanowitz                         |
|------------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------|
|                               |   | Harry F. Yanowitz                                 |
|                               |   | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 169 (Friday, August 29, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50954-50955]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-20051]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13166-000]


FFP Ohio River 14, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Applications 
Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comment, Motions To Intervene, and 
Competing Applications

August 22, 2008.
    On April 15, 2008, FFP Ohio River 14, LLC each filed an 
application, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act, 
proposing to study the feasibility of the Ohio River 12 and Ohio River 
8 Projects, to be located on the Ohio River in Clark and Jefferson 
Counties, Indiana and Trimble County, Kentucky.

[[Page 50955]]

    The proposed Ohio River 14 Project consists of: (1) 3,900 proposed 
20 kilowatt Free Flow generating units having a total installed 
capacity of 78 megawatts, (2) a proposed transmission line, and (3) 
appurtenant facilities. The FFP Ohio River 14, LLC, project would have 
an average annual generation of 341.6 gigawatt-hours and be sold to a 
local utility.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Dan Irvin, FFP Ohio River 14, LLC, 69 Bridge 
Street, Manchester, MA 01944, phone (978) 232-3536.
    FERC Contact: Robert Bell, (202) 502-6062.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing 
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file 
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice. 
Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing 
applications may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR 
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site 
under the ``e-Filing'' link. If unable to be filed electronically, 
documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an original and eight 
copies should be mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. For 
more information on how to submit these types of filings please go to 
the Commission's Web site located at http://www.ferc.gov/filing-comments.asp. More information about this project can be viewed or 
printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number (P-
13166) in the docket number field to access the document. For 
assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3372.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-20051 Filed 8-28-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
KPMG
                KPMG LLP                     Telephone          314 444 1400
                Suite 900                    Fax                314 444 1470
                10 South Broadway            Internet        www.us.kpmg.com
                St. Louis, MO 63102-1761

            Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Board of Directors
Citibank, N.A.:

We have examined management's assessment, included in the accompanying
Management Assessment of Compliance with Applicable Servicing Criteria,
that Citibank, N.A. (the Custodian) complied with servicing criteria
1122(d)(4)(i) and 1122(d)(4)(ii) set forth in paragraph (d) of Item 1122
of the Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation AB in connection with
the servicing of residential mortgage loans for which the Custodian performs
a custodial function pursuant to a custodial agreement with Citigroup Mortgage
Loan Trust Inc. for post December 31, 2005 transactions (the Platform), as of
and for the year ended December 31, 2006. Management is responsible for the
Custodian's compliance with those servicing criteria. Our responsibility is
to express an opinion on management's assessment about the Custodian's
compliance based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with the standards of the Public
Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included
examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Custodian's compliance with the
servicing criteria specified above and performing such other procedures as we
considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of
less than all of the individual asset-backed transactions and securities in
which the Custodian performs a particular servicing function and determining
whether the Custodian processed those selected transactions and performed those
selected activities in compliance with the servicing criteria. Furthermore, our
procedures were limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities
performed by the Custodian during the period covered by this report. Our
procedures were not designed to determine whether errors may have occurred
either prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances
or amounts calculated or reported by the Custodian during the period covered by
this report for the selected transactions or any other transactions. We believe
that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our
examination does not provide a legal determination on the custodian's
compliance with the servicing criteria.

In our opinion, management's assessment that the Custodian complied with
certain servicing criteria outlined in Exhibit A in the accompanying Management
Assessment of Compliance with Applicable Servicing Criteria, as of and for the
year ended December 31, 2006 is fairly stated, in all material respects.

               /s/ KPMG LLP

St. Louis, Missouri
March 19, 2007
usap-ex1022_179.htm



Exhibit 10.22

 

First amendment to EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

THIS AMENDMENT, dated as of the   18th   day of February 2020 to the employment agreement made as of the 21st day of December 2007, by and between UNIVERSAL STAINLESS & ALLOY PRODUCTS, INC., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), and Dennis M. Oates (the "Executive").

WITNESSETH:

In consideration of the covenants and agreements herein contained, and intending to be legally bound hereby, the Company and Executive agree as follows:

Amendment:

WHEREAS, the Company desires to eliminate the corporate membership at the Southpointe Golf Club, 360 Southpointe Boulevard, Canonsburg, PA  15317; and 

WHEREAS, the Executive is an employee designated as a corporate member of the Southpointe Golf Club pursuant to the Company’s corporate membership, and 

WHEREAS, the Executive wishes to convert the Southpointe Golf Club corporate membership to a personal Master Membership, and 

WHEREAS, the Executive’s employment agreement made as of the 21st day of December 2007 provides for in Schedule A: Incentive Compensation and Perquisites, Item #5 Club Membership:  The Company shall pay the membership dues for Executive at Southpointe Golf Club.  Charges related to the use of the Club shall be the responsibility of the Executive.

NOW, THEREFORE, the Executive’s employment agreement made as of the 21st day of December 2007 will be so amended to eliminate the Schedule A: Incentive Compensation and Perquisites, Item #5 Club Membership. The Executive’s monthly salary will be adjusted effective January 1, 2020, to cover the monthly dues payment of the Master Membership. 

No other changes are made to the Executive’s employment agreement made as of the 21st day of December 2007.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company and the Executive have duly executed this Agreement as of the day and year first written above.

UNIVERSAL STAINLESS & ALLOY

PRODUCTS, INC.

 

By:/s/ Paul A. McGrath__________________________

 

Title:VP of Administration, General Counsel & Secretary

 

EXECUTIVE

 

/s/ Dennis M. Oates________________________________

Dennis M. Oates
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6173 

To prohibit the President from revoking Presidential permits relating to 

cross-border energy facilities. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 8, 2021 

Mr. WALBERG (for himself, Mr. LATTA, Mr. BERGMAN, Mrs. MCCLAIN, Mrs. 

LESKO, Mr. TIFFANY, Mr. BALDERSON, Mr. GRIFFITH, Mr. 

MOOLENAAR, Mr. DUNCAN, Mr. GALLAGHER, Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio, and 

Mr. JOYCE of Pennsylvania) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committees on Energy and Commerce, and Natural Resources, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in 

each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To prohibit the President from revoking Presidential permits 

relating to cross-border energy facilities. 

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 ‘‘Protecting Inter5 national Pipelines for Energy Security Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6173 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON REVOCATION OF PRESIDENTIAL 

2 PERMITS. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provi4 sion of law, the President may not revoke a Presidential 

5 permit, or any other permit or authorization, required pur6 suant to Executive Order No. 13337 (3 U.S.C. 301 note), 

7 Executive Order No. 11423 (3 U.S.C. 301 note), Execu8 tive Order No. 12038 (43 Fed. Reg. 4957), Executive 

9 Order No. 10485 (18 Fed. Reg. 5397), or any other Exec10 utive order for the construction, connection, operation, or 

11 maintenance of an oil or natural gas pipeline or electric 

12 transmission facility, or any border-crossing facility there13 of, unless such revocation is authorized by an Act of Con14 gress. 

15 (b) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

16 (1) BORDER-CROSSING FACILITY.—The term 

17 ‘‘border-crossing facility’’ means the portion of an oil 

18 or natural gas pipeline or electric transmission facil19 ity that is located at an international boundary of 

20 the United States. 

21 (2) NATURAL GAS.—The term ‘‘natural gas’’ 

22 has the meaning given such term in section 2 of the 

23 Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717a). 

24 (3) OIL.—The term ‘‘oil’’ means petroleum or 

25 a petroleum product. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
## THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN. TEKAS 78711 February 18, 1977

The Honorable Ted Butler Criminal District Attorney Bexar County Courthouse SanAntonio, Texas 78205 Opinion No. H-942 Re: Application of County Civil Service Act to secretaries and clerks in the juvenile probation office. Dear Mr. Butler: You have requested our opinion concerning whether the secretaries and clerks in theJuvenile Probation Office of Bexar County are subject to the County Civil Service Act. V.T.C.S. art. 2372h-6. InAttorney General Opinion H-619 (1975),, we found that adult probation officers were not subject to theCounty Civil Service Act, sincewebelieved the control exercised by district judges over adult probation was inconsistent with the authority of theCivil Service Commission concerning employees subject to theAct. InAttorney General Opinion H-672 (19751,we decided that juvenile probation officers were likewise not subject to the County Civil Service Act, since article 5142c-2 required suchofficers tobe appointed subject to the approval of the Juvenile Board. Article 5142c-2 also applies to secretaries and clerks within the Juvenile Probation Office and in essence provides for the complete management of such office by the judges on the Juvenile Board. SeeV.T.C.S. art. 5139. This control over the Juvenile Probzon Office is inconsistent with the powers of aCounty Civil Service Commission. Attorney General Opinions H-672 (19751;H-619 (1975). Accordingly, inour opinion, secretaries and clerks employed by theBexar County Juvenile Probation Office are not subject to the County Civil Service Act.

p. 3939The Honorable Ted Butler -page 2 (H-942)

SUMMARY Secretaries and clerks employed by the Bexar County Juvenile Probation Office are not subject to theCounty Civil Service Act. yery truly yours,



# ,,,{##zfy&j~ ,/iA~~~r~;,"G~neral of Texas 

# ~~!jc~ays’ant

Opinion Commit&e jwb

P. 3940
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 14, 2019

No. 04-19-00537-CR

Donald Martin MOORE,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016CR5878

The Honorable Mark Luitjen, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The trial court’s certification in this appeal states “this criminal case is a plea-bargain 

case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” The clerk’s record contains a written plea 

bargain, and the punishment assessed did not exceed the punishment recommended by the 

prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant; Rule 25.2(a)(2) applies. See TEX. R. APP. P. 

25.2(a)(2).

This court must dismiss this appeal “if a certification that shows the defendant has a right 

of appeal has not been made part of the record under these rules.” Id. R. 25.2(d); see Chavez v. 

State, 183 S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). 

We ORDER Appellant to cause an amended trial court certification to be filed in this 

court within TWENTY days of the date of this order showing Appellant has the right of appeal. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d), 37.1; see also Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2005); Daniels v. State, 110 S.W.3d 174 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, no pet.). If no 

amended trial court certification is filed as ordered, this appeal will be dismissed. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 25.2(d).

All other appellate deadlines are SUSPENDED pending further order of this court.

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 14th day of August, 2019.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court