alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### NUMBER 13
- 11 - 00 039 - CV 

## COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI
- EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________ PORT NECHES POLICE ASSOCIATION , A ppellant ,

v. CITY OF PORT NECHES , A ppellee

.

____________________________________________________________

On a ppeal from the 172nd District Court of Jefferson County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________



## MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Garza, Benavides, and P erkes Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam Appellant, Port Neches Police Association , perfected an appeal from a judgment entered by the 1 72nd District Court of Jefferson County, Texas, in cause number
E

- 185,220 . Appellant has filed a n unopposed motion to dismiss the appeal on grounds that the parties have reached a settlement . Appellant requests that this Court dismiss the appeal.2

The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellant = s motion to dismiss the appeal, is of the opinion that the motion should be granted. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 42.1(a). Appellant = s unopposed motion to dismiss is granted, and the appeal is hereby DISMISSED. In accordance with the agreement of the parties, costs are taxed against the party incurring same. Se e T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 42.1(d) ("Absent agreement of the parties, the court will tax costs against the appellant."). Having dismissed the appeal at appellant's request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained, and our mandate will
issue forthwith.
PER CURI AM
D elivered and filed the 12th day of January , 20 1 2

.
EXHIBIT 32

                                             CERTTHE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


         In connection with the Quarterly Report of Penn-Pacific  Corp., on Form
10-QSB for the quarter  ending June 30,  2007 as filed with the  Securities  and
Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "REPORT"),  the  undersigned,  Rose
Fischer,  Chief  Executive  Officer  and  Principal  Accounting  Officer  of the
Company,  certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge and belief:

         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.


Date: July 5, 2007



/s/ Rose Fischer
Rose Fischer
President
(Principal Executive & Accounting Officer)


A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement
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.
Amendment of Employment Agreement between NW Mutual Ins. Co. and Patricia Hatler



 Exhibit 10.28.1 
  
 AMENDMENT 
  
 THIS AMENDMENT (the “Amendment”) is entered into as of March 1, 2005, by and between Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company (the
“Company”) and Patricia Hatler (the “Executive”). 
  
 WHEREAS the Company and the Executive have entered into an Employment Agreement dated as of January 1, 2000 (the “Employment Agreement”), and the parties now wish to amend the Employment Agreement.

  
 NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto, intending
to be legally bound, hereby agree that the Employment Agreement is amended as follows: 
  
 1. Section 2.3(b)(vi) is hereby amended to revise the last two sentences to read as follows: 
  
 The benefits under this subsection (vi) shall be paid in the same forms and at the same times as Executive’s benefits under the
applicable Plans described above are paid (or would have been paid had Executive’s interest in the applicable Plans been fully vested). The benefits payable under this subsection (vi) and subsection (vii) below shall not result in any
duplication of benefits. 
  
 2. Section
2.3(b)(vii) is amended by revising the last sentence to read as follows: 
  
 The benefits under this subsection (vii) shall be paid in the same forms and at the same times as Executive’s benefits under the applicable Plans described above are paid (or would have been paid had
Executive’s interests in the applicable Plans been fully vested). 
  
 3. Section 3.4(b)(vii) is revised by amending the last sentence to read as follows: 
  
 The benefits under this subsection (vii) shall be paid in the same forms and at the same times as Executive’s benefits under the
applicable Plans described above are paid (or would have been paid had Executive’s interests in the applicable Plans been fully vested), as in effect immediately before the Change of Control. 
  









 4. In all respects not amended, the Employment Agreement is hereby ratified and
confirmed. 
  
 WITNESS the following signatures:

  

									
	 	 	 	 	 NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE

	 	 	 	 	 COMPANY

				
	 	 	 	 	 By:
	 	 
	Patricia Hatler	 	 	 	 	 	 
					
	 Date
	 	 	 	 	 	 Name:
	 	 
					
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 Title:
	 	 

  

 2
EXHIBIT 10.1
                                                                    ------------



                     FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

This FIRST AMENDMENT dated March 3, 2005, of the EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (the
"Agreement") dated January 30, 2002 by and between Accessity Corp., f/k/a
DriverShield Corp. f/k/a driversshield.com Corp., a New York corporation with an
address at 12514 West Atlantic Blvd, Coral Springs, Florida 33071 (the
"Company"), and Barry Siegel, residing at ________________ (the "Executive").



                               W I T N E S S E T H
                               - - - - - - - - - -

         WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Employment Agreement under
which the Executive is employed by it and render services to it, and Executive
is willing to amend the Employment Agreement under which he is so employed and
wishes to continue to render such services to the Company, all on the terms and
subject to the conditions contained herein.

         NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements
contained herein, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt
sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:


1.       Term
         ----

         The Term of this Agreement shall be extended for an additional three
(3) years commencing on January 1, 2005 and terminating on December 31, 2007
(the "Expiration Date"), unless earlier terminated under the terms and
conditions herein (the "Employment Term").


2.       Other terms and conditions.
         ---------------------------

         All other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain if full
force and effect.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as
of the date written below.


ACCESSITY CORP.                     BARRY SIEGEL


By:_______________________          By:_______________________


Title:____________________          Dated:____________________


Dated:____________________
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6894 

To limit the authority of the Secretary of the Treasury to authorize United 

States financial institutions to engage in certain Russian-related energy 

transactions blocked by Executive Order 14024, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 2, 2022 

Mr. BARR (for himself, Ms. TENNEY, Mr. MAST, and Mr. GREEN of Tennessee) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committee on Financial Services, 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 limit the authority of the Secretary of the Treasury 

to authorize United States financial institutions to engage in certain Russian-related energy transactions 

blocked by Executive Order 14024, 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 ‘‘No Energy Revenues 

5 for Russian Hostilities Act of 2022’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6894 IH

1 SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON AUTHORIZING CERTAIN RUSSIAN2 RELATED ENERGY TRANSACTIONS. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of the Treasury 

4 may not authorize a United States financial institution to 

5 engage in a transaction described under General License 

6 No. 8A, dated February 28, 2022, with respect to Execu7 tive Order 14024 of April 15, 2021 (‘‘Blocking Property 

8 With Respect To Specified Harmful Foreign Activities of 

9 the Government of the Russian Federation’’). 

10 (b) TERMINATION OF GENERAL LICENSE NO. 8A.— 

11 General License No. 8A, dated February 28, 2022, shall 

12 have no force or effect. 

13 (c) WAIVER.—The Secretary may waive subsection 

14 (a) for up to 90 days at a time for a specific transaction 

15 upon certifying to the Committee on Financial Services 

16 of the House of Representatives and the Committee on 

17 Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate 

18 that— 

19 (1) the transaction involves funds owed to a 

20 Russian person; and 

21 (2) the funds, subject to approval by the Sec22 retary, are to be used for the sale of agricultural 

23 commodities, food, medicine, or medical devices. 

24 (d) TERMINATION.—Subsection (a) shall have no 

25 force or effect on the earlier of— 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 6894 IH

1 (1) the date that is 5 years after the date of en2 actment of this Act; or 

3 (2) 30 days after the date that the President 

4 reports to Congress that the Government of the Rus5 sian Federation has ceased its destabilizing activities 

6 with respect to the sovereignty and territorial integ7 rity of Ukraine. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>       5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from quarterly
financial statements for the nine months ended September 30, 1997 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
       
<S>                                                              <C>
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                                   DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                                        SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                             9-MOS
<CASH>                                                               36,677,014
<SECURITIES>                                                         14,001,583
<RECEIVABLES>                                                         6,245,702
<ALLOWANCES>                                                           (886,000)
<INVENTORY>                                                           3,649,731
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                     59,831,141
<PP&E>                                                               13,578,276
<DEPRECIATION>                                                       (6,444,485)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                       75,978,577
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                                10,746,894
<BONDS>                                                                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                         0
<PREFERRED>                                                                   0
<COMMON>                                                                584,724
<OTHER-SE>                                                           50,885,926
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                         75,978,577
<SALES>                                                              38,682,107
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                     41,742,204
<CGS>                                                                15,899,700
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                        15,899,700
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                        166,875
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                            0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                      11,910,898
<INCOME-TAX>                                                          4,533,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                   7,377,898
<DISCONTINUED>                                                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                               0
<CHANGES>                                                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                                                          7,377,898
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                              1.95
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                                 0
        

</TABLE>
Order filed November 7, 2013 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-13-00731-CV

____________

SABRINA TAYLOR, Appellant

V.

THE HARDFORD INSURANCE OF MIDWEST, Appellee

On Appeal from the 215th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2011-57408

ORDER

On October 15, 2013, appellant, who is appearing pro se, filed a timely 

motion in this court challenging the trial court’s September 30, 2013, ruling 

sustaining a contest to her affidavit of indigence. See Tex. R. App. P. 20.1(j)(1), 

(2). When a motion to review the trial court’s ruling on indigence is filed, the trial 

court clerk and the court reporter must prepare, certify, and file the record of the 

hearing on the contest to the claim of indigence within three days after the motion 

is filed. See Tex. R. App. P. 20.1(j)(3). No record has been filed. 
Under the unambiguous language of Rule 20.1(j), if the appellate court does 

not deny a motion under Rule 20.1(j) within 10 days after the motion is filed, this 

motion is granted by operation of law. Tex. R. App. P. 20.1(j)(4). Even if the trial 

court clerk and the court reporter prepare, certify, and file the hearing record within 

three days after the motion is filed, the appellate court has less than a week to 

review the record and rule on the merits of the motion. If the trial court clerk and 

the court reporter file the hearing record after this deadline but within 10 days after 

the filing of the motion, this court has a very short time to rule on the merits. If the 

trial court clerk and the court reporter do not file the hearing record within 10 days 

after the filing of the motion, as in this case, this court has no ability to review the 

merits of the motion, and the motion is granted by operation of law regardless of 

whether the motion has merit. Tex. R. App. P. 20.1(j)(4). This new rule places a 

heavy burden on the trial court clerk and the court reporter to act expeditiously in 

preparing, certifying, and filing the hearing record. If they fail to do so, then under 

the applicable procedure, this court has no ability to review the merits of the 

motion. 

More than 10 days have passed since the motion was filed and appellant’s 

motion was granted by operation of law. Accordingly, appellant may proceed on

appeal without the advance payment of costs. 

Therefore, we ORDER the Harris County District Clerk and the court 

reporters, Cantrese Addison and LaVearn Ivey, to prepare, certify, and file the 

appellate record without the advance payment of costs. See Tex. R. App. P. 

20.1(k). The record will be due in this court 30 days from the date of this order.

PER CURIAM
#### Joseph Aline, Respondent, *v.*Morris Linzer, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department,

December 13, 1956.

*Allen Ducher*for appellant.

*Bernard Meyerson*and *Philip Brown*for respondent.

The appeal from order vacating dismissal of action for lack of prosecution and restoring case to the general calendar should be dismissed, with $10 costs to the plaintiff. The order is not appealable. (N. Y. City Mun. Ct. Code, § 154.)

Pette, Hart and Di G-iovanna, JJ., concur.

Appeal dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                                DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                                     SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                                                3,939,355
<SECURITIES>                                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                           793,692
<ALLOWANCES>                                                             24,395
<INVENTORY>                                                             393,899
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                      5,167,136
<PP&E>                                                               25,270,507
<DEPRECIATION>                                                        6,110,578
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                       25,603,356
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                                 1,209,272
<BONDS>                                                               2,906,099
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                                              0
<COMMON>                                                              1,568,848
<OTHER-SE>                                                               0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                         25,603,356
<SALES>                                                               3,379,617
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                      3,447,187
<CGS>                                                                 2,943,267
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                         4,122,157
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                      1,254,471
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                      669,602
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                      (2,465,901)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                  (2,465,901)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                                         (2,555,870)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                             (0.21)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                             (0.21)


</TABLE>
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 the Quarterly Report of Portsmouth Square, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, John V. Winfield, President and Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge,
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: May 12, 2011                              /s/ John V. Winfield
                                                ----------------------------
                                                John V. Winfield, President
                                                and Chief Executive Officer




[A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Portsmouth Square, Inc. and will be retained by Portsmouth Square,
Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.]
Opinion issued August 6, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-13-00044-CV

———————————

HITECH PRODUCTS, INC. AND DAVID E. DODD, BOTH D/B/A 

FANTASTIC FOUNTAINS, Appellants

V.

SIGMA MARBLE & GRANITE – HOUSTON, INC., Appellee

On Appeal from the 80th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 2012-30253

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellants, HiTech Products, Inc. and David E. Dodd, have failed to timely 

file a brief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(a) (governing time to file brief), 38.8(a) 

(governing failure of appellant to file brief). Appellee, Sigma Marble & Granite –

Houston, Inc., has filed a motion, based on appellants’ failure to timely file a brief,
2

requesting that we affirm the trial court’s judgment or, alternatively, dismiss this 

appeal. After being notified that this appeal was subject to dismissal, appellants

did not respond to either the notice or appellee’s motion. See TEX. R. APP. P.

42.3(b).

Accordingly, we grant appellee’s motion and dismiss the appeal for want of 

prosecution. We dismiss all other pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Sharp and Massengale.
#### TAYLOR v. SHREVEPORT RYS. CO.

No. 7359.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

June 30, 1949.

*242Ereyer, Goode, Nelson & Freyer, Shreveport, for appellant.

Stephens & Allen, Bryan E. Bush, Jos. H. Stephens, Jr., Shreveport, for appellee.

HARDY, Judge.

Plaintiff in this suit is the tutor of the minor, Bennie Ruth Sherouse, who was also a passenger in the automobile driven by B. E. Petteway. After trial there was judgment in favor of plaintiff for the use and' benefit of his minor ward in the sum of $1,000.00, from which judgment defendant has appealed. Plaintiff has answered the appeal, praying for an increase in the amount of the judgment to $5,000.00. Additionally, plaintiff complains of that part of the judgment allowing the intervention of Shreveport Charity Hospital and decreeing the payment of hospital expenses to the extent of $116.00 out of the judgment awarded plaintiff.

Plaintiff’s ward is a young, unmarried female who suffered rather severe lacerations of the left shoulder and arm and a slight cut in the left corner of her upper lip as a result of the accident. The minor was hospitalized for a period of 13 days, and, unquestionably, suffered considerable pain. Particularly it is urged that the laceration of the arm has left a large, ugly, raised scar, impairing the appearance of the girl and causing humiliation and embarrassment. In our opinion the evidence adduced with regard to the injuries suffered and the permanent effect thereof, is inconclusive and unsatisfactory. The only evidence in this particular instance on this point is found in the testimony of the plaintiff and his minor ward. No attempt was made to introduce any expert testimony bearing upon the permanence and effects of the injuries. The District Judge had the opportunity to visually examine the worst of the scars, whieh was on the girl’s arm. Under these circumstances, we do not feel that we would be justified in disturbing the amount of the judgment.

For the reasons assigned the judgment appealed from is affirmed at appellant’s cost.