alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES
                       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                             Washington, D.C. 20549

                                    Form 13F

                               Form 13F COVER PAGE

Report for the Calendar Year or Quarter Ended:  June 30, 1999

Check here if Amendment [    ]; Amendment Number: ____
    This Amendment (Check only one.): [    ] is a restatement.
                                      [    ] adds new holdings entries.

Institutional Investment Manager Filing this Report:

Name:      Citibank (Switzerland)
Address:   Seestrasse 25, CH-8021
           Zurich, Switzerland

Form 13F File Number:              28-1833

The institutional investment manager filing this report and the person by whom
it is signed hereby represent that the person signing the report is authorized
to submit it, that all information contained herein is true, correct and
complete, and that it is understood that all required items, statements,
schedules, lists, and tables, are considered integral parts of this form.

Person Signing this Report on Behalf of Reporting Manager:

Name:      Silvio Ammann
Title:     Treasurer
Phone:     41.1.205.7558

Signature, Place, and Date of Signing:

/s/ Silvio Ammann             Zurich, Switzerland             August 16, 1999
-----------------

Report Type (Check only one.):

[   ] 13F  HOLDINGS  REPORT.   (Check  here  if  all  holdings  of  this
      reporting manager are reported in this report.)

[ X ] 13F NOTICE. (Check here if no holdings reported are in this report,
      and all holdings are reported by other reporting manager(s).)

[   ] 13F COMBINATION REPORT. (Check here if a portion of the holdings for this
      reporting manager are reported in this report and a portion are reported
      by other reporting manager(s).)

List of Other Managers Reporting for this Manager:

Form 13F File Number 28-2427
Name:  Citigroup Inc.
Exhibit 32.1





Certification of Principal Executive Officer


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to


Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





In connection with the Annual Report of Alamo Energy Corp. a Nevada corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ending April 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Allan Millmaker, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certifies to the best of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) 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 result of operations of the Company.





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Alamo Energy Corp., and will be retained by Alamo Energy Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.








/s/ Allan MillmakerAllan Millmaker

Chief Executive Officer

August 4, 2010
214 La. 881

#### SMITH v. SMITH.

No. 38915.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 14, 1949.

Anna Andollina, of New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellee.

Robert E. Baird, of New Orleans, for de f endant-app ellant.

-HAMITER, Justice.

Because of the regrettable, as well as unusual and unnatural, defense offered herein on behalf of and by the wife in resisting the demand of her husband for *163part time custody of her child, we prefer not to indulge in an extended discussion of this action which was instituted by the husband primarily to recover a judgment of separation from bed and board on the ground of abandonment admitted by the wife.

It is sufficient to say fhat the appeal presents the single legal question of whether the wife has the right to contest her husband’s paternity of a child born during the marriage (presumed to be his under Revised Civil Code Articles 184 and 186), and to announce our conclusion, supported amply by the hereinafter cited authorities, that the able trial judge correctly answered such question in the negative. See Revised Civil Code Articles 184 to 192, inclusive; Eloi v. Mader, 1 Rob. 581, 38 Am.Dec. 192; Dejol et al. v. Johnson, Administrator, 12 La.Ann. 853; Succession of Saloy, 44 La.Ann. 433, 10 So. 872; Succession of Flynn, 161 La. 707, 109 So. 395.

The judgment is affirmed.

O’NIELL, C. J., does not take part.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

March 13, 2019

No. 04-19-00099-CR

IN RE Gabriel James FUENTES

Original Habeas Proceeding1

ORDER

On February 22, 2019, relator filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus. After considering 

the petition, this court concludes we do not have jurisdiction. Accordingly, the petition for writ of 

habeas corpus is DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION. 

It is so ORDERED on March 13, 2019.

_____________________________

Beth Watkins, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 13th day of March, 2019.

_____________________________

Keith E. Hottle, Clerk of Court

 1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2015CR5272W, styled The State of Texas v. Gabriel James Fuentes, pending 

in the 437th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Lori I. Valenzuela presiding.
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.                  

###### Committee for Purchase from People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled

This Committee is correcting the notice of products that moved from its C-List to B-List.

In the notice appearing on page 50930-50931 on August 29, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 169), the Committee published products that are C-List products incorrectly as products that are moving from the C-List to the B-List.

The products that have moved from the C-List to the B-List are:

SKILCRAFT 18″ Blue Wet Mop 7920-01-565-4597.

SKILCRAFT 24″ Blue Wet Mop 7920-01-565-4596.

SKILCRAFT 18″ Yellow Dust Mop 7920-01-565-4598.

SKILCRAFT 24″ Yellow Dust Mop 7920-01-565-4599.

SKILCRAFT Flat Mop Handle with Frame 18″ 7920-01-565-4595.

SKILCRAFT Flat Mop Handle with Frame 24″ 7920-01-565-4600.

                    The URL for accessing the A-List is corrected as follows:                     *http://www.jwod.gov/​jwod/​p_​and_​s/​A-List_​08.html*.                

Kimberly M. Zeich,

Director, Program Operations.

[FR Doc. E8-20610 Filed 9-4-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6353-01-P
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Kenneth Hopper, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (George, J.), rendered September 13, 1988, convicting him of attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon his plea of a guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the hearing court erred in declining to suppress the gun which the police recovered during a stop and frisk. We disagree.

A police officer is authorized to stop and detain a person if the officer entertains a reasonable suspicion that the person is engaged in criminal activity, and to frisk the person if the officer reasonably suspects a danger of physical injury or that the person is armed and dangerous (see, CPL 140.50 [1], [3]; *People v De Bour,*40 NY2d 210; *People v Marine,*142 AD2d 368; *People v Jackson,*111 AD2d 831; *People v Williams,*79 AD2d 147). Because an experienced officer credibly testified that he saw the outline of a gun in the defendant’s jacket, while the defendant was acting nervously in a high crime area, the hearing court properly determined that the stop and frisk was warranted and correctly declined to suppress the gun *(see, People v Milliner,*146 AD2d 717; *People v Trulio,*135 AD2d 758; *People v Mandley,*134 AD2d 622; *People v Henriquez,*128 AD2d 803).

We also find that the hearing court acted within its discretion in refusing to permit the in-court demonstration requested by the defendant *(see, People v Mariner,*147 AD2d 659, 660; *Norfleet v New York City Tr. Auth.,*124 AD2d 715, 717; *Washington v Long Is. R. R. Co.,*13 AD2d 710). Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Rubin and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
#### William E. SANDERS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 44755.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 31, 1972.

*209Michael N. Buckley, Dallas, for appellant.

Jim D. Vollers, State’s Atty., Robert A. Huttash, Asst. State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

OPINION

ONION, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was tried before the court and found guilty of knowingly exhibiting an obscene film in violation of Article 527, Vernon’s Ann.P.C., a misdemeanor since it was his first conviction under said statute. Sentence was pronounced at 90 days in jail and a $200 fine. Imposition of sentence and judgment were suspended and appellant was placed on misdemeanor probation. Article 42.13, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P.

No briefs were filed, but there is fundamental error which requires reversal “in the interest of justice.” Article 40.09 § 13, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P.

The State’s case consisted of the testimony of a Dallas detective and police photographer who had paid admission to a local theater and the admission into evidence of sixteen black and white photographs of frames taken during the exhibition of the film. The photographs portray various kinds of heterosexual activity.

The allegedly obscene film appellant was found guilty of exhibiting was not introduced into evidence before the court as the trier of fact nor is it included in the appellate record. This omission compels reversal. Bryers v. State, 480 S.W.2d 712 (Tex.Cr.App.1972); Longoria v. State, 479 S.W.2d 689 (Tex.Cr.App.1972).

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
EXHIBIT
      32.1


CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO


18
      U.S.C.
      SECTION 1350,


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
      connection with this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Maxco, Inc. (the
“Company”) for the period ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Max A. Coon, as
      Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§
1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      that:




(1)
      This
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




(2)
      Information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.




Date:February 14, 2006
                
                
                /s/ Max
                  A.
                  CoonMax
                  A. CoonChief Executive
                  Officer




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
      and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the Court has determined th a t

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Fifth Circuit

No. 98-20162

Carroll H. Wilkinson,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

Star Enterprise,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court For the Southern District of Texas

(H-96-CV-1284)

October 23, 1998

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges

PER CURIAM: *

Carroll Wilkinson appeals from the district court’s grant of

summary judgment for Star Enterprise with respect to her claim that

she was subjected to employment discrimination based on her race in

violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e. Wilkinson argues that

she has been deprived of equal employment opportunities because she

has been denied promotions and raises in comparison to other nonminority employees performing similar work.We have reviewed the record and the parties’ briefs and AFFIRM

the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Star

Enterprise. W ilkinson v. Star Enterprise

, No. H-96-1284 (S.D. Tex.

Jan. 30, 1998).
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Precision Castparts Corp. (the Company) for the fiscal period ended December 30, 2007 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Mark Donegan, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that:



|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) 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.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                    
|------------------------------------
|Date: February 8, 2008              
|                                    
|/s/ Mark Donegan                    
|Mark Donegan                        
|Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
EX-31 Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certifications

  I, John Sadowski, certify that:

  1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K/A and all reports on Form 10-D
     required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report
     on Form 10-K/A of J.P. Morgan Alternative Loan Trust 2006-S2 (the
     "Exchange Act periodic reports");

  2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a
     whole, do 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, all of the distribution, servicing and other
     information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period
     covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic
     reports;

  4. I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the
     servicer(s) and based on my knowledge and the compliance review(s)
     conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statement(s) required in
     this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed
     in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer(s) have fulfilled
     their obligations under the servicing agreement(s) in all material
     respects; and

  5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing
     criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation
     reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for
     asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in
     accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules
     13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report,
     except as otherwise disclosed in this report.  Any material instances
     of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in
     this report on Form 10-K/A.

     In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on
     information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:
     Chase Home Finance LLC as Sub-Servicer, GreenPoint Mortgage Funding, Inc.
     as Servicer, JP Morgan Chase Bank, NA as Named Servicer, PHH Mortgage
     Corporation as Servicer and SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. as Servicer.

     Dated:    June 5, 2008

     /s/ John Sadowski
     Signature

     Vice President
     (senior officer in charge of the servicing function of the master servicer)
Exhibit 10.50 



American Retirement
Corporation (the “Company”)



2004
and 2005 Additional Bonus Criteria Under Officer’s Incentive Compensation Plan



     I.    
          2004 ADDITIONAL CRITERIA. For fiscal 2004, the Compensation Committee of
          the Company’s Board of Directors approved certain additional bonus criteria
          under the Company’s Officer’s Incentive Compensation Plan, a copy of
          which has been filed as Exhibit 10.8 to the Company’s Annual Report on Form
          10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004 (the “Plan”). For
          fiscal 2004, bonuses under Parts B and C of the Plan were predicated on targets
          (in addition to EBITDAR) based upon entrance fee sales levels and increasing
          occupancy at certain free-standing assisted living communities. 



     II.    
          2005 ADDITIONAL CRITERIA. For fiscal 2005, the Compensation Committee of
          the Company’s Board of Directors approved certain additional bonus criteria
          under the Plan. For fiscal 2005, bonuses under Parts B and C of the Plan will be
          predicated on targets (in addition to EBITDAR) based upon increasing occupancy
          at certain free-standing assisted living communities.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                        10826
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                        537
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                             589
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                          2965
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                     448
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   15365
<COMMON>                                          3518
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                            1
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                               1205
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                    4724
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               93
<PREFERRED>                                        199
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                              3714
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                 158
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                      70
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                      492
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                        131
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                    56
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                    5728
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                    15365
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                         3474
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                               296
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                        2534
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                        2830
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                            644
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                  42
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                     686
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           292
<NET-INCOME>                                       394
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                         14
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                      380
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                           300
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                          239
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                             892
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.71
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.71
        


</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Stewart Williams, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Appelman, J.), rendered February 29, 1988, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed *(see, People v Tinsley,*35 NY2d 926). Mangano, P. J., Kunzeman, Hooper, Sullivan and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Paris SNF, LLC d/b/a Heritage House at 

Paris Rehab & Nursing, Appellant

No. 06-22-00028-CV v.

Brenda Sheetz and Ronald Hill, Appellees

Appeal from the 62nd District Court of 

Lamar County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 90535). 

Memorandum Opinion delivered by Chief 

Justice MorrissJustice Stevens and Justice 

van Cleef participating. 

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find that the motion of the appellant to 

dismiss the appeal should be granted. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal.

We further order that the appellant, Paris SNF, LLC d/b/a Heritage House at Paris Rehab 

& Nursing, pay all costs incurred by reason of this appeal.

RENDERED JULY 13, 2022

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED June 20, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-40694 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus DEAN THOMAS MORTON, JR., Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 1:03-CR-203-ALL-MAC

-------------------- Before STEWART, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Dean Thomas Morton, Jr., appeals following his guilty plea to possession with intent to distribute less than 100 grams of a mixture containing a detectible amount of phencyclidine. The Government has waived Morton’s appeal waiver in the plea agreement by not seeking to enforce it. See United States v. Story , 439 F.3d 226, 230 (5th Cir. 2006). Morton argues that his sentence is invalid in light of United States v. Booker , 543 U.S. 220 (2005), because theNo. 04-40694 -2- district court applied the Sentencing Guidelines as if they were mandatory. We review for plain error. See United States v. Valenzuela-Quevedo , 407 F.3d 728, 732 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 267 (2005). To prevail under a plain-error analysis, Morton must show, among other things, that the error prejudiced him by adversely affecting his substantial rights. See id. at 733. Morton fails to identify anything in the record to suggest that his sentence would have been lower had the court applied the Sentencing Guidelines as advisory rather than mandatory. See id. He thus fails to establish prejudice to his substantial rights.
See id. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.