alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
| **Commitments and Contingent Liabilities (Narrative) (Details) (USD $)In Millions, unless otherwise specified** | 6 Months Ended |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------|
||
| **Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]**                                                         |           |
| Estimate for which the risk of loss is more than remote but not probable                                        | $ 1            |

| X                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Definition
Estimate for which the risk of loss is more than remote but not probable
+ References
No definition available.
+ Details**Name:**cinf_EstimateforWhichTheRiskofLossisMorethanRemoteButNotProbable**Namespace Prefix:**cinf_**Data Type:**xbrli:monetaryItemType**Balance Type:**debit**Period Type:**duration |
| X                                                                                                                                                                                 |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Details**Name:**us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract**Namespace Prefix:**us-gaap_**Data Type:**xbrli:stringItemType**Balance Type:**na**Period Type:**duration |
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          22,850
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   15,408
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      6,320
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                17,823
<PP&E>                                         971,309
<DEPRECIATION>                                  70,895
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,030,476
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           61,403
<BONDS>                                        495,564
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           406
<OTHER-SE>                                     456,760
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,030,476
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               245,290
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  175,770
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   300
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              18,772
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 55,020
<INCOME-TAX>                                    22,008
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             33,012
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     75
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    33,087
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .79
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .73
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.4

CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL APPEARING IN THIS DOCUMENT IS OMITTED AND FILED SEPARATELY WITH THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 24b-2, PROMULGATED UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED. OMITTED
INFORMATION IS REPLACED WITH ASTERISKS.

FIRST AMENDMENT

TO PROCESSOR AGREEMENT

THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO PROCESSOR AGREEMENT(Amendment) dated March 1, 2005, by and between GOLDEN RETRIEVER SYSTEMS, L.L.C. (GRS) and REWARDS NETWORK INC.(CUSTOMER), amends the Processor Agreement dated August 23, 2004, by and
between GRS and CUSTOMER (the Agreement).

WITNESSETH THAT:

WHEREAS, CUSTOMER and GRS desire to amend the term and certain pricing contained in the Agreement;

NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the promises and mutual covenants hereinafter set forth and for other good and valuable consideration,
the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:

FIRST

The effective date of the Agreement is hereby modified and deemed to be effective as of the first day of the month following the date of this Amendment.

SECOND

The pricing
table in Exhibit A, number 4. is hereby deleted and replaced in its entirety as follows:

***

THIRD

Except as specifically
modified or amended by the terms of this Amendment, all other terms and provisions of the Agreement, shall continue in full force and effect and are hereby ratified and confirmed by the parties, and all of said documents are hereby deemed amended,
to the extent required, to reflect the provisions hereof.



Rewards Network Amendment



---

CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL APPEARING IN THIS DOCUMENT IS OMITTED AND FILED SEPARATELY WITH THE SECURITIES AND
EXCHANGE COMMISSION IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 24b-2, PROMULGATED UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED. OMITTED INFORMATION IS REPLACED WITH ASTERISKS.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Amendment to be executed and delivered by
their duly authorized representatives as of the date first above written.



|                     |  |                      |  |                                 |  |        |  |                       
|-------------------- |  | -------------------- |  | ------------------------------- |  | ------ |  | ----------------------
|REWARDS NETWORK INC. |  |                      |  | GOLDEN RETRIEVER SYSTEMS L.L.C.
|                     |  |                      |  |                                
|By:                  |  | /s/ George Wiedemann |  |                                 |  | By:    |  | /s/ Harry E. Hasselman
|Title:               |  | President and CEO    |  |                                 |  | Title: |  | Member - Secretary    
|Date:                |  | March 1, 2005        |  |                                 |  | Date:  |  | March 8, 2005         



Rewards Network Amendment
**Annual
      Statement of Compliance**


**Bear
      Stearns Asset Backed Securities I Trust 2006-HE5**





VIA:
      EMAIL





Bear
      Stearns Asset Backed Securities I LLC


383
      Madison Avenue


New
      York,
      New York 10179


regabnotifications@bear.com





EMC
      Mortgage Corporation


2780
      Lake
      Vista Drive


Lewisville,
      Texas 75067





Re:  The
      Pooling and Servicing agreement dated as of May 1, 2006 (the “Agreement”), among
      Bear Stearns Asset Backed Securities I LLC, as Depositor and Purchaser, EMC
      Mortgage Corporation, as Seller and Master Servicer, and LaSalle Bank National
      Association, as Trustee.







I,
      Barbara L. Marik, a First Vice President of LaSalle Bank National Association,
      as Trustee hereby certify that:





(1)
      A
      review of the activities of the Trustee during the preceding calendar year
      and
      of the performance of the Trustee under the Agreement has been made under my
      supervision; and





(2)
      To
      the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Trustee has fulfilled all
      its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout such
      year or a portion thereof.







Date: February
      1, 2007





LaSalle
      Bank National Association, as Trustee




/s/
      Barbara L Marik


Barbara
      L. Marik


First
      Vice President
Medical Retiree Program




 Exhibit 10.9 
  
 Medical Retiree Program 
  
 This policy outlines the criteria and benefits for Staktek employees who retire from Staktek employment as set forth below. 
  
 Program criteria 
 An employee of Staktek is eligible for the medical retirement benefits set forth below if all of the following conditions are met: 
  

	 	1)	The employee must be a department director or a member of senior management; 


	 	2)	The employee must be at least 60 years of age when retiring from Staktek; 


	 	3)	The employee must have at least five years of active service with Staktek, either continuous or cumulative; and 


	 	4)	The employee must be an active employee of Staktek who is retiring from employment with Staktek. 

  
 Retirement benefits 
 Staktek will
provide medical, dental and vision coverage to employees who retire (“retirees”) and their dependents eligible under this Policy. The Company will pay the same amount per month towards the cost of this coverage as the monthly amount the
Company paid for the retiree’s medical, dental and vision coverage in the last month of retiree’s employment with the Company. The retiree will be responsible for paying the remaining cost of the coverage. Coverage will terminate when the
retiree reaches age 65 and becomes eligible for Hospital Insurance and the Supplementary Medical Insurance of the US Government’s Medicare plan, or the retiree is employed elsewhere and is covered by another group program. 
  
 Ineligibility 
 If a retiree fails to make his or her monthly premium, or if the payment is received after the 10th of the following month, coverage will terminate at midnight on the last day of the month a premium was made and the retiree will not be eligible for reinstatement. 
  
 Survivor benefits 
 Should a Staktek
retiree pass away before reaching age 65, group coverage will end on the last day of the month for any surviving dependents. The surviving dependents will be eligible for COBRA under rules adopted by the Federal government.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MR. ROBINSON, AKA Robinson, AKA

Fnu Robinson,

Petitioner,

v.

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney

General,

Respondent. No. 14

- 70673

Agency No. A095

- 634

- 713

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted March 8, 2017 **

Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS , Circuit Judges.

Respondent’s motion to lif t the stay of proceedings (Docket Entry No. 41) is

granted.

Robinson , a native and citizen of Indonesia

, petitions for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen

* 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

MAR 16 2017

M OLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 14

- 70673

removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for

abuse of discretion the BIA’ s denial of a motion to reopen, Najmabadi v. Holder

,

597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010) , and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Robinson’s second motio n

to reopen as untimely and num ber

- barred where he filed it over five years after the

final order of removal

, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) , and where he failed to show

prima facie eligibility for the relief he sought, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii) ;

Toufighi v. Mukasey , 538 F.3d 988, 996 (9th Cir. 2008) (explaining the BIA can

deny a motion to reopen based on changed country conditions for failure to

establish a prima facie case for the relief sought); Wakkary v. Holder , 558 F.3d

1049 , 1065 (9th Cir. 2009) (even under disfavored group analysis, petitioner must

present some evidence of individualized risk).

PETITON FOR REVIEW DENIED.
EXHIBIT 32





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF


THE SARBANES OXLEY ACT OF 2002


The certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with this report on Form 10-Q for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Exchange Act and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.





Steven J. Johnston, the chairman and chief executive officer, and Michael J. Sewell, the chief financial officer, of Cincinnati Financial Corporation each certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:


1. the report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and


2. the information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Cincinnati Financial Corporation.





Date: October 31, 2022





/S/ Steven J. JohnstonSteven J. Johnston, FCAS, MAAA, CFA, CERAChairman and Chief Executive Officer/S/ Michael J. SewellMichael J. Sewell, CPAChief Financial Officer, Executive Vice President and Treasurer(Principal Accounting Officer)
**EXHIBIT 32****CERTIFICATE OF CEO**     The undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of FGBC Bancshares, Inc.(the “Registrant”), do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on our knowledge: (1) the annual report on Form 10-K of the Registrant, to which this certificate isattached as an exhibit (the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of section13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a)); and  (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.Dated: March 30, 2007         /s/ Jackie L. Reed   Jackie L. Reed, CEO    /s/ Teresa L. Martin   Teresa L. Martin, CFO
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 21, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-51269

Summary Calendar

RUBEN JAMES GONZALEZ

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

JUPITER COMMUNITIES LLC

Defendant-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 5:05-CV-940

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ruben James Gonzalez is appealing the district court’s denial of his motion

to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal following the district court’s order

granting the defendant Jupiter Communities, L.L.C. (Jupiter) summary

judgment and dismissing his complaint under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

Gonzalez is effectively challenging the district court's certification that he should

not be granted IFP status because his appeal is not taken in good faith. See

Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). 
No. 06-51269

2

Jupiter presented summary judgment evidence that Gonzalez was

terminated because he was not performing his job in a satisfactory manner.

Gonzalez did not rebut that evidence. Nor did he show that he was treated

differently from similarly situated employees. Other than his conclusional

assertions, Gonzalez has not provided any evidence that he was terminated

based on his gender. Thus, Gonzalez did not satisfy his burden of showing that

a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether Jupiter intentionally

discriminated against him based on his sex. Longfield v. Eastfield College, 88

F.3d 300. 304 (5th Cir. 1996). 

Because there was no genuine issue as to any material fact and Jupiter

was entitled to judgment as a matter of law, the district court’s determination

that Gonzalez’s appeal was not taken in good faith was correct. See Howard v.

King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983).

Because Gonzalez has failed to show that he has a nonfrivolous issue for

appeal, we uphold the district court’s order certifying that the appeal is not

taken in good faith. Gonzalez’s request for IFP status is DENIED, and his

appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 & n.24; 5th Cir.

R. 42.2. 

IFP DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS.
Motion Granted; Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed August

4 , 2016.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 16

- 00367

- CR

EX PARTE CARLOS FUEN TES

On Appeal from the Co unty Crim inal C our t at Law No

. 14

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2075135

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant Carlos Fuentes appeals from the denial of his pretrial application for writ of habeas corpus challenging the constitutionality of the Harris County Game Room Regulations.

On May 18, 2016, the underlying charge was dismissed because the trial

cou rt granted appellant’s motion to quash the information. Because appellant is no
longer confined on the charge he challenged in his pretrial writ of habeas corpus, appellant’s appeal of the denial of that writ is moot. See Martinez v. State , 8262

S.W.2d 620 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992).

On July 14, 2016, the State filed a motion to dismiss based on mootness. The motion is granted and the appeal is dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Boyce, Christopher and Jamison

. Do Not Publish

— Tex. R. App

. P. 47.2( b).
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-6651

KEITH S. DAVIS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

WALTER W. STOUT, Judge; K. SCOTT MILES, Public

Defender; MICHELLE B. MITCHELL, Richmond City

Jail Sheriff,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District

Judge. (CA-03-259-2)

Submitted: May 28, 2003 Decided: June 10, 2003

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Keith S. Davis, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Keith S. Davis appeals the district court’s order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed

the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we

grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons

stated by the district court. See Davis v. Stout, No. CA-03-259-2

(E.D. Va. April 17, 2003). 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.

AFFIRMED
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6737 

To amend the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act to 

extend the authorization of appropriations for the Lead Exposure Registry, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 15, 2022 

Mr. KILDEE (for himself, Mr. MOOLENAAR, Mrs. DINGELL, Mr. UPTON, Mrs. 

LAWRENCE, Mr. MEIJER, Mr. LEVIN of Michigan, Mr. BERGMAN, Ms. 

TLAIB, Mr. HUIZENGA, Ms. STEVENS, Mr. WALBERG, Ms. SLOTKIN, and 

Mrs. MCCLAIN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the 

Nation Act to extend the authorization of appropriations 

for the Lead Exposure Registry, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Flint Registry Reau5 thorization Act’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6737 IH

1 SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR LEAD 

2 EXPOSURE REGISTRY. 

3 Section 2203(d) of the Water Infrastructure Im4 provements for the Nation Act (42 U.S.C. 300j–27(d)) is 

5 amended— 

6 (1) by redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as 

7 subparagraphs (A) and (B); 

8 (2) by striking ‘‘There’’ and inserting the fol9 lowing: 

10 ‘‘(1) FISCAL YEARS 2017 THROUGH 2021.— 

11 There’’; and 

12 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

13 ‘‘(2) FISCAL YEARS 2023 THROUGH 2033.— 

14 There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out 

15 subsection (b) $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 

16 2023 through 2033.’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7581

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

WILLIE WILLIAMS, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Columbia. Solomon Blatt, Jr., Senior District

Judge. (CR-92-33-3)

Submitted: June 20, 1996 Decided: June 27, 1996

Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Willie Williams, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Mark C. Moore, Assistant

United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his

motion for release pending disposition of his motion for reconsideration of the denial of his Fed. R. Crim. P. 35 motion and pending

the outcome and possible appeal of a pending and a future habeas

corpus proceeding. We have reviewed the record and the district

court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v.

Williams, No. CR-92-33-3 (D.S.C. Sept. 18, 1995). 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.

AFFIRMED
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v David Batashvili, Also Known as David Batash, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from four judgments of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Berkowitz, J.), all rendered June 24, 1988, convicting him of grand larceny in the third degree under indictment No. 5735/86, attempted criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree under indictment No. 6598/86, criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree under indictment No. 8030/86, and attempted criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree under indictment No. 5611/87, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences.

*401Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no meritorious issues that could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631; *cf., People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606). Thompson, J. P., Rubin, Rosenblatt and Miller, JJ., concur.