alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
| 001-11001                                | 06-0619596                        |
|------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------|
| (Commission File Number)                 | (IRS Employer Identification No.) |
|                                     |                              |
| 3 High Ridge Park, Stamford, Connecticut | 06905                             |
| (Address of principal executive offices) | (Zip Code)                        |

|   | o | Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425) |
|--------|---|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | o | Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12) |
|--------|---|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | o | Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b)) |
|--------|---|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | o | Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR240.13e-4(c)) |
|--------|---|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----

| Item 8.01 | Other Events |
|-----------|--------------|

| Item 9.01 | Financial Statements and Exhibits |
|-----------|-----------------------------------|

|   | 99.1 | Press Release of Frontier Communications Corporation released on May 20, 2010. |
|--------|------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----

|                          | FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION |
|-------------------------------|-------------------------------------|
|                          |                                |
| Date:  May 20, 2010 | By:/s/ Robert J. Larson             |
|                          | Robert J. Larson                    |
|                          | Senior Vice President and           |
|                          | Chief Accounting Officer            |
|                          |                                |
208 La. 316

#### HORNSBY v. HORNSBY.

No. 37575.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 29, 1945.

*106R. A. Dowling, of New Orleans, for appellant.

Bentley G. Byrnes, of New Orleans, for plaintiff and appellee.

O’NIELL, Chief Justice.

This is an appeal from a judgment of separation from bed and board, granted on the ground of cruel treatment of the wife by the husband. In his answer to the suit he denied that he had treated his wife cruelly, and in the alternative pleaded that if the court should conclude that he was ever at fault in that respect his wife had forgiven and condoned the ill-treatment up to the time of her abandoning him for the purpose of bringing this suit. She claimed also the care and custody of their only child, a boy nearly eleven years of age, and claimed alimony for herself and the child. The defendant in his answer brought a reconventional demand for a decree of separation on the ground of ill-treatment on the part of his wife, by constantly nagging, abusing and finding fault with him — and on the ground that she had abandoned the matrimonial residence without just cartse, secretly, taking the child with her. In the decree of separation the judge entrusted the care and custody of the child to the mother, and allowed her $40 a month for their support.

The only question before the judge was whether the husband or the wife was at fault in the domestic quarrels ; and that question of course depended largely if not entirely upon the veracity of the parties — comparatively speaking. They were the only witnesses in the case except a woman neighbor who testified that she had seen what she called “slap marks” on Mrs. Hornsby’s face, and other marks on her body, on several occasions after the Hornsbys had quarreled. Their matrimonial relations were generally unhappy. Each of them was in some measure responsible for the unhappiness. But the preponderance of the evidence is in favor of the wife — or rather against the husband. Her forgiving or condoning his ill-treatment as long as she could endure it was commendable, and should not defeat her right of action for a separation when the ill-treatment became intolerable. Her explanation is sufficient in our opinion, as it was in the opinion of the trial judge when she said: “Well, I tried to malee a go of it, but I could not.”

No good reason is suggested why the care and custody of the child should be transferred from the wife to the husband. The amount of alimony allowed 'by the judge for the support of both the mother and child is certainly not excessive. She makes no complaint of its being too little.

The judgment is affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 168 (Thursday, August 28, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 50812]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-20122]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0274; FRL-8381-2]


FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel; Notice of Change of Public 
Meeting Dates

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Agency is issuing this notice to extend a meeting of the 
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) Scientific 
Advisory Panel by one half-day. The meeting, originally scheduled for 
September 16-18, 2008, was announced in the Federal Register of July 9, 
2008 (73 FR 39292) (FRL-8373-5).

DATES: The meeting will now be held September 16-19, 2008, from 
approximately 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., eastern standard time, with the 
meeting concluding by noon Friday, September 19, 2008.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Holiday Inn--Rosslyn at Key 
Bridge, 1900 North Fort Myer Dr., Arlington, VA 22209; telephone 
number: (703) 807-2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sharlene R. Matten, Designated Federal 
Officer (DFO), Office of Science Coordination and Policy (7201M), 
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (202) 564-0130; fax 
number: (202) 564-8382; e-mail address: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#dcb1bda8a8b9b2f2afb4bdaeb0b9b2b99cb9acbdf2bbb3aa"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b7dad6c3c3d2d999c4dfd6c5dbd2d9d2f7d2c7d699d0d8c1">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: All other information provided in the July 
9, 2008 Federal Register public meeting notice remains unchanged.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests.


    Dated: August 25, 2008.
Gary E. Timm,
Acting Director, Office of Science Coordination and Policy.
[FR Doc. E8-20122 Filed 8-26-08; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

LUIS ALBERTO CASTILLO-OSUNA,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 10-10347

D.C. No. 2:10-cr-00398-DGC

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

David G. Campbell, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 10, 2012** 

Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. 

Luis Alberto Castillo-Osuna appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 18-

month sentence for harboring an illegal alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),

Castillo-Osuna’s counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief,

FILED

SEP 19 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 10-10347

along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided CastilloOsuna with the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se

supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.

75, 80 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal. We

dismiss in light of the valid appeal waiver. See United States v. Nguyen, 235 F.3d

1179, 1182 (9th Cir. 2000). 

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

DISMISSED.
EX-35 (c)
GREENPOINT MORTGAGE FUNDING, INC.

SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT

JPL 2006-S2

     I, Michael De  Francesco,  an  authorized  officer of  GreenPoint  Mortgage
     Funding, Inc. (the "Servicer"), certify that:

     1. A  review  of the  Servicer's  activities  during  the  period  from and
     including  January 1, 2006  through  and  including  December  31, 2006 (or
     applicable  portion  thereof) and of the Servicer's  performance  under the
     applicable servicing agreement has been made under my supervision.

     2. To the best of my  knowledge,  based on such  review,  the  Servicer has
     fulfilled all of its obligations under the applicable  servicing  agreement
     in all material respects throughout such period.

Capitalized terms used but not defined herein have the meanings ascribed to them
in the Agreement.

Date: February 28, 2007

/s/Michael De Francesco
Michael De Francesco
Senior Vice President, Loan Administration
EXHIBIT 35.2
            SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT (ITEM 1123)
                               GMAC MORTGAGE, LLC
        RALI SERIES 2006-QS6 TRUST (THE "ISSUING ENTITY")

The undersigned,  a duly authorized  officer of GMAC Mortgage,  LLC, as servicer
(the "Servicer")  pursuant to the applicable  servicing  agreement,  does hereby
certify that:

1.   A review of the  Servicer's  activities  during the  period  covered by the
     Issuing  Entity's  report  on Form 10-K and of the  Servicer's  performance
     under  the   applicable   servicing   agreement  has  been  made  under  my
     supervision.

2.   To the  best of my  knowledge,  based  on such  review,  the  Servicer  has
     fulfilled all of its obligations under the applicable  servicing  agreement
     in all material respects throughout such period.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 26th
day of March 2007.

By:      /s/ Anthony N. Renzi
      Name:  Anthony N. Renzi
      Title:    Executive Vice President
AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

     AMENDMENT NO. 3, effective May 17, 1998, to Employment Agreement (the
"Employment Agreement") made as of March 1, 1984, and amended effective May 17,
1988, and May 17, 1993, between Polymer Research Corp. of America (the
"Company") and Carl Horowitz, (the "Employee").

     WHEREAS, the Company and the Employee desire to further amend the
Employment Agreement;

     NOW, THEREFORE, the Company and the Employee hereby agree that the
Employment Agreement is amended as follows:

     1. Section 1 thereof is hereby amended to provide that the Company agrees
to employ Employee and Employee agrees to be so employed, as President and Chief
Executive officer of the Company for a term of five years commencing on May 17,
1998 and terminating on May 16, 2003.

     2. Paragraph 4 of the Agreement, as amended, is deleted in its entirety and
replaced with the following: 

          "The Company shall pay Employee an annual salary as follows:

          (a) from May 17, 1998 to December 31, 1998, $170,000;

          (b) from January 1, 1999 to December 31, 2000, $180,000;

          (c) from January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2000, $190,000;


<PAGE>


          (d) from January 1, 2001 to December 31, 2001, $200,000;

          (e) from January 1, 2002 to December 31, 2002, $210,000;

          (f) from January 1, 2003 to May 16, 2003, $240,000.

Said salary shall be paid in equal weekly installments subject to appropriate
withholding deductions.

     3. Except as herein amended, all other terms of the March 1, 1984
Employment Agreement, as amended effective May 17, 1988, shall remain in full
force and effect.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment No. 3 as of
October 23, 1998, effective May 17, 1998.

                                               POLYMER RESEARCH CORP. OF AMERICA



                                               BY:  /s/ Irene Horowitz 
                                                  ------------------------------
                                                       Irene Horowitz,
                                                       Senior Vice-President


                                                    /s/ Carl Horowitz  
                                                  ------------------------------
                                                       Carl Horowitz, Employee
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1168 RICHARD PEAMON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus KATHLEEN TREMPLER; DIVISION OF CHILD SUPPORT CIRCUIT COURT FOR BALTIMORE COUNTY, Defendants - Appellees, and STATE OF MARYLAND, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CA-99-2998-WMN) Submitted: April 27, 2000 Decided: May 2, 2000Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.2 Richard Peamon, Appellant Pro Se. Shelly Eilene Mintz, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Richard Peamon appeals the district court’s order denying his complaint filed under 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 1983, 1988(b) (West Supp.1999). 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. See Peamon v. Maryland , No. CA99-2998-WMN (D. Md. Jan. 13, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
EX-35 (d)
GREENPOINT MORTGAGE FUNDING, INC.

SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT

MLM 2006-A02

I, Michael De Francesco, an authorized officer of GreenPoint Mortgage Funding,
Inc. (the "Servicer"), certify that:

1. A review of the Servicer's activities during the period from and including
January 1, 2006 through and including December 31, 2006 (or applicable portion
thereof) and of the Servicer's performance under the applicable servicing
agreement has been made under my supervision.

2. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled
all of its obligations under the applicable servicing agreement in all material
respects throughout such period.


Capitalized terms used but not defined herein have the meanings ascribed to them
in the Agreement.

Date: February 28, 2007


/s/ Michael De Francesco
Michael De Francesco
Senior Vice President, Loan Administration
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Bruce Stevenson, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: In this nonjury trial, the court’s failure to conduct a *Sandoval*hearing *(see, People v Sandoval,*34 NY2d 371) does not require reversal. The court explained that it was familiar with the *Sandoval*ruling and the concerns underlying it and instructed the prosecutor to limit cross-examination of the defendant only to matters relating to credibility. The court also stated that it was unnecessary and wasteful for another Judge to conduct a separate *Sandoval*hearing. On this record, we cannot conclude that the court abused its discretion in ruling as it did. To the extent that the Second Department’s decision in *People v Oglesby*(137 AD2d 840, 841-842, *appeal dismissed*72 NY2d 831) may be read to require a *Sandoval*hearing in every nonjury trial, we choose not to follow it. Although a jury may tend to conclude, despite limiting instructions, that a defendant who has committed previous crimes is more likely to have committed the crime charged *(see, People v Davis,*44 NY2d 269, 274), the Judge in a nonjury trial will not have that tendency *(see, People v Rosa,*96 Misc 2d 491, 492). A Trial Judge is presumed to have evaluated the evidence only for the purpose of impeaching a defendant’s credibility and not as evidence of guilt of the crime charged *(see, People v Moreno,*70 NY2d 403, 406; *People*
      *855
      *v Torres,*140 AD2d 729, *lv denied*72 NY2d 962). To require a trial court to conduct a *Sandoval*hearing in every nonjury trial would be a wasteful expenditure of the court’s time and effort. This is particularly true in the instant case where the Trial Judge explained at great length his understanding of the principles and policy underlying the *Sandoval*rule and his understanding that he would be bound by the same instructions he would give a jury that defendant’s prior criminal conduct could be considered only relative to defendant’s credibility. In any event, even if the court erred in denying defendant’s request for a *Sandoval*hearing, the error would be harmless because the evidence of defendant’s guilt was overwhelming. We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contention and find it lacking in merit. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Doyle, J.—sodomy, first degree.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Denman, Green, Balio and Lowery, JJ.
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 Annual
Report on Form 10-K of Susser Holdings Corporation (the Company) for the fiscal year ended January 2, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Sam L. Susser, President
and 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, as amended; 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: March 18, 2011 |  |  |  | /S/    SAM L.
SUSSER                               
|                     |  |  |  | Sam L. Susser President and Chief Executive Officer

This certification
accompanies this Report on Form 10-K pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> US DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           3,592
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   91,898
<ALLOWANCES>                                       912
<INVENTORY>                                     39,257
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               168,964
<PP&E>                                       2,096,462
<DEPRECIATION>                                 777,847
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,657,349
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          114,902
<BONDS>                                        628,336
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     16,378
<COMMON>                                       447,700
<OTHER-SE>                                     229,404
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,657,349
<SALES>                                        544,246
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               544,246
<CGS>                                          341,768
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  430,050
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              37,035
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 86,885
<INCOME-TAX>                                    27,270
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             59,615
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    59,615
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.00<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00<F1>
<FN>
<F1>All common stock is owned by parent, no EPS required.
</FN>
        

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

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and new trial granted. Memorandum: Defendant was tried, in absentia, and convicted of two counts of burglary in the second degree and two counts of grand larceny in the fourth degree. The convictions must be reversed.

A defendant in a criminal case has a fundamental right to be present at all material stages of his trial *(see, People v Mehmedi,*69 NY2d 759, 760; *People v Ciaccio,*47 NY2d 431, 436). Any waiver of that right must be voluntary, knowing and intelligent *(People v Smith,*68 NY2d 725; *People v Parker,*57 NY2d 136). To effect such waiver, "defendant must, at a minimum, be informed in some manner of the nature of the right to be present at trial and the consequences of failing to appear for trial” *(People v Parker, supra,*at 141). Implicit in *813the holding of *Parker*is the requirement that the defendant be informed of the actual date of his trial *(see, People v Sanchez,*65 NY2d 436, 443). Since there is nothing in this record showing that defendant was notified that his trial would commence on November 28, 1988, County Court erred in conducting the trial in absentia. (Appeal from judgment of Niagara County Court, Hannigan, J.—burglary, second degree.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Denman, Green, Pine and Lowery, JJ.