alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### BURNETTE v. TOEBELMAN.

No. 17297.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

June 4, 1940.

For former opinion, see 195 So. 135.

Lewis R. Graham and Harry R. Cabral, both of New Orleans, for appellant.

William H. McClendon, Jr., of New Orleans, for appellee.

*530McCALEB, Judge.

A rehearing was granted in this case because we entertained some doubt as to whether the evidence submitted by the plaintiff was sufficient to maintain her contention that the board of the porch of defendant’s premises, which broke under her weight, was decayed, loose and insecurely fastened and that the defendant was guilty of fault in failing to maintain his premises in a safe condition.

A careful re-examination of the evidence submitted at the trial convinces us of the correctness of the result reached in our former decree.

For the reasons assigned, our original opinion and decree herein are reinstated as the final judgment of this court.

Original decree reinstated.
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.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health 

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting. 

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. 

*Name of Committee:*                         Communication Disorders Review Committee.                     

*Date:*                         October 15-16, 2008.                     

*Time:*                         October 15, 2008, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.                     

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                     

*Place:*                         One Washington Circle Hotel, One Washington Circle, Washington, DC 20037.                     

*Time:*                         October 16, 2008, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.                     

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                     

*Place:*                         One Washington Circle Hotel, One Washington Circle, Washington, DC 20037.                     

*Contact Person:*                         Shiguang Yang, DVM, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Scientific Review Branch, Division of Extramural Activities, NIDCD, NIH, 6120 Executive Blvd., Suite 400C, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1425,                         *yangshi@nidcd.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.173, Biological Research Related to Deafness and Communicative Disorders, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: August 29, 2008. 

Jennifer Spaeth, 

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. E8-20681 Filed 9-5-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
exv10w12



 







Exhibit 10.12 Summary of 2005 Compensation for Named Executive Officers



At its meeting on December 20, 2004, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of
Eli Lilly and Company approved the 2005 compensation of the company’s named executive officers (as
defined in Regulation S-K Item 402(a)(3)) as described below:








																	
	Executive Officer	 	 	Salary (1)	 	 	Bonus (2)	 	 	Option Grant	 	(3)	 	 	Performance	 	Award (4)
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	No. of shares	 	Present	 	 	No. of shares	 	Present
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	value	 	 	 	 	value
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Sidney Taurel

Chairman, President, and

Chief Executive Officer
	 	$	1,580,000	 	$	1,726,800	 	 	255,621	$	4,320,000	 	 	51,752	$	2,880,000
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	John C. Lechleiter, Ph.D.

Executive Vice President,

Pharmaceutical
Operations
	 	$	929,800	 	$	692,875	 	 	127,811	$	2,160,000	 	 	25,876	$	1,440,000
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Charles E. Golden

Executive Vice President

and Chief Financial

Officer
	 	$	845,700	 	$	631,200	 	 	78,107	$	1,320,000	 	 	15,813	$	880,000
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Steven M. Paul, M.D.

Executive Vice President,

Science and Technology
	 	$	831,060	 	$	617,415	 	 	85,207	$	1,440,000	 	 	17,251	$	960,000
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Robert A. Armitage

Senior Vice President and

General Counsel
	 	$	637,940	 	$	411,370	 	 	53,254	$	900,000	 	 	10,782	$	600,000









	(1)  	Annualized base salaries effective as of March 1, 2005, the merit increase date for U.S.
employees.
	 
	(2)  	Target bonus under the Eli Lilly and Company Bonus Plan. Actual bonuses earned for 2005 may
vary from zero to 200 percent of the target amount, depending on the company’s 2005 results
relative to predetermined corporate performance measures that are based 25 percent on sales
growth and 75 percent on earnings-per-share growth (adjusted for unusual items in accordance
with predetermined criteria).
	 
	(3)  	Granted February 11, 2005. The options vest February 11, 2008 and expire February 10, 2015.
The exercise price is $55.65, the market value of Lilly stock on the date of grant. Present
values are as of the grant date and are based on the company’s trinomial lattice valuation
method of 30.37 percent of the exercise price of $55.65.
	 
	(4)  	Target payout under the performance award program for 2005. Actual payouts earned for 2005
may vary from zero to 200 percent of the target amount, depending on the growth in the
company’s 2005 earnings per share (adjusted for unusual items in accordance with predetermined
criteria). Present values are as of February 11, 2005, and are based on 100 percent of the
market value of Lilly stock on that date ($55.65 per share).




The named executive officers will continue to participate in other employee benefits as described
in the company’s proxy statements, including a defined benefit retirement plan, a 401(k) plan, the
Lilly Deferred Compensation Plan, and the company’s change in control severance pay program.
EXHIBIT 35.1
                  SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT (ITEM 1123)
                        RESIDENTIAL FUNDING COMPANY, LLC
             RASC SERIES 2006-EMX4 TRUST (THE "ISSUING ENTITY")

The undersigned,  a duly authorized officer of Residential Funding Company, LLC,
as servicer (the  "Servicer")  pursuant to the Pooling and Servicing  Agreement,
dated as of May 1, 2006 (as amended from time to time, the  "Agreement"),  among
Residential  Asset Securities  Corporation,  as depositor,  Residential  Funding
Company, LLC (formerly Residential Funding Corporation), as master servicer, and
U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee, 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 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  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:    Managing Director
#### In the Matter of Colonial Penn Insurance Company, *307Respondent, v Nancy Colbert, Appellant.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to stay arbitration, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Molloy, J.), dated September 7, 1988, which denied the appellant’s motion to vacate a prior judgment of the same court entered upon her default. The appeal brings up for review an order of the same court, dated November 4, 1988, which denied the appellant’s motion for renewal (CPLR 5517 [b]).

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated September 7, 1988, is dismissed, as that order was superseded by the order dated November 4, 1988; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated November 4, 1988, is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondent is awarded one bill of costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the appellant has failed to establish that she has a viable uninsured motorist claim. The appellant’s affidavit, belatedly submitted, was inadequate to demonstrate that the claim has merit. Lawrence J. P., Kunzeman, Rubin and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.3

        Certification Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18
                            of the United States Code

      I, Robert E. Busch, Chief Financial Officer of Public Service Electric and
Gas Company, to the best of my knowledge, certify that (i) the Quarterly Report
of Public Service Electric and Gas Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended
June 30, 2006 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of Public Service Electric and Gas Company.

                                      /s/ Robert E. Busch
                                     -------------------------------------------
                                      Robert E. Busch
                                      Public Service Electric and Gas Company
                                      Chief Financial Officer
                                      August 1, 2006
Exhibit 32


Allegiant Travel Company Certification under Section 906 of the Sarbanes/Oxley Act - filed as an exhibit to 10-K for Year Ended December 31, 2013





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 Annual Report of Allegiant Travel Company (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2013 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2014 (the “Report”), the undersigned, Maurice J. Gallagher, Jr., Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Scott Sheldon, Chief Financial 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 to the best of our knowledge:





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.





/s/ Maurice J. Gallagher, Jr./s/ Scott SheldonMaurice J. Gallagher, Jr.Scott SheldonPrincipal Executive OfficerPrincipal Financial OfficerApril 30, 2014April 30, 2014





The foregoing Certification shall not be deemed incorporated by reference by any general statement incorporating by reference this report into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, except to the extent that we specifically incorporate this information by reference, and shall not otherwise be deemed filed under such Acts.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7049 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7049

 To amend the Truth in Lending Act to require Property Assessed Clean 
Energy financiers to receive the consent of mortgage holders and other 
                lien holders before providing financing.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 9, 2022

 Mr. Sherman introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Truth in Lending Act to require Property Assessed Clean 
Energy financiers to receive the consent of mortgage holders and other 
                lien holders before providing financing.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Mortgage Borrower Protection Act of 
2022''.

SEC. 2. PROPERTY ASSESSED CLEAN ENERGY FINANCING CONSENT REQUIREMENT.

    Section 128 of the Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1638) is amended 
by adding at the end the following:
    ``(g) Property Assessed Clean Energy Financing Consent 
Requirement.--
            ``(1) In general.--With respect to a dwelling of a consumer 
        that is the subject of a residential mortgage loan or other 
        recorded lien, it shall be unlawful to extend Property Assessed 
        Clean Energy financing to the dwelling owner with respect to 
        such dwelling without first receiving the written consent of 
        each owner of each residential mortgage loan and other recorded 
        lien, either directly from the owner or from a servicer.
            ``(2) Exception.--Consent shall not be required under 
        paragraph (1) from an owner of a residential mortgage loan or 
        other recorded lien if amounts that become due and payable 
        under the applicable Property Assessed Clean Energy financing 
        will not have priority over such residential mortgage loan or 
        other recorded lien.
            ``(3) Penalty.--With respect to any Property Assessed Clean 
        Energy financing extended in violation of this subsection--
                    ``(A) such Property Assessed Clean Energy financing 
                shall be null and void; and
                    ``(B) the consumer shall not be required to repay 
                any amounts received under the Property Assessed Clean 
                Energy financing.
            ``(4) Definition of property assessed clean energy 
        financing.--In this subsection, the term `Property Assessed 
        Clean Energy financing' has the meaning given that term under 
        section 129C(b)(3)(C)(i).''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Mario RASTRALLI, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

Supreme Court of Florida. Special Division A.

Dec. 7, 1954.

Sam E. Murrell, Sam E. Murrell, Jr., and Robert G. Murrell, Orlando, for petitioner.

*271Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen., Bart L. Cohen, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

SEBRING, Justice.

This is a certiorari proceeding to review an order denying an adjudication of insolvency.

Mario Rastralli, a minor, was convicted of the offense of breaking and entering with intent to commit a misdemeanor. Thereafter, he sought the benefits of the insolvency statute, section 924.17, Florida Statutes 1951, F.S.A., for the purpose of taking an appeal. The trial judge entered an order in which he specifically found that the defendant was insolvent, but that defendant's plea to be adjudicated an insolvent should be denied because it had not been shown “that the defendant’s father * * * is insolvent, or unable to pay the costs of the cause.”

It appears to us that the trial court proceeded without regard to the essential requirements of the law when he denied the application for insolvency filed by the defendant below. The trial court found from the affidavit and evidence that the defendant was insolvent, and yet denied his application because he had not shown that his father was unable to pay the costs of appeal. Such a finding must necessarily have been predicated on the conclusion that the payment of costs in a criminal case for the purposes of an appeal from a judgment of conviction is a “necessary,” within the meaning of the law, for which the parent of an infant is liable in the same fashion that the parent is liable for food, clothing, shelter and other obvious necessaries. We find no law to support such a conclusion.

As is made clear by our decisions, the test on an inquiry of insolvency is not what the prisoner’s friends or relatives have the ability to do in paying costs, or their readiness or willingness to pay them. The test is whether the defendant, himself, has the ability to pay the costs or to secure their payment. Swilley v. State, 76 Fla. 173, 79 So. 715; Baker v. State, Fla., 42 So.2d 768; Loy v. State, Fla., 74 So.2d 650.

The order herein should be quashed with directions that an order be entered finding the defendant to be insolvent, within the meaning of section 924.17, Florida Statutes 1951, F.S.A., and for further proceedings in conformance with law.

It is so ordered.

ROBERTS, C. J., and MATHEWS and DREW, JJ., concur.
Dated: 3/29/2007                                                                             In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:By: /s/  Lloyd A. Brown                                                                  Title:Vice PresidentAsset Backed Securities CorporationI, Lloyd A. Brown, certify that:1.  I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Asset Backed Securities Corporation Home Equity Loan Trust, Series NC 2006-HE4 (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.  Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statements required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreements in all material respects; and5.  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.Lloyd A. Brown**Exhibit 31 : Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certifications**Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., as ServicerU.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee and Custodian
#### Jo Ann Powell, by Anna Belle Powell, Her Mother and Next Friend, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Norman E. Goldman, Administrator of the Estate of Rudolph Shepherd, Deceased, Defendant-Appellant.

Gen. No. 50,436.

First District, Third Division.

June 30, 1966.

George F. Barrett, of Chicago (Donald J. Duffy, of counsel), for appellant; Leonard M. Ring, Earl E. Strayhorn and Jack Ring, of Chicago (Leonard M. Ring, of counsel), for appellee.

Opinion by

PRESIDING JUSTICE SULLIVAN.

Not to be published in full.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 175 (Tuesday, September 9, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52341-52342]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-20861]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 12500-003]


Ocean Renewable Power Company, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit 
Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To 
Intervene, and Competing Applications

September 3, 2008.
    On March 13, 2008, Ocean Renewable Power Company, LLC filed an 
application, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act, 
proposing to study the feasibility of the West Palm Beach OCGen Power 
Project, located in the Gulf Stream in the Atlantic Ocean off the coast 
of West Palm Beach, in Palm Beach County, Florida. No federal land or 
facilities would be used. The project uses no dam or impoundment.
    The proposed project would consist of: (1) 500 proposed OCGen 
module units, with a total installed capacity of 150-megawatts, (2) a 
proposed 12-mile-long, 33-kilovolt transmission line, and (3) 
appurtenant facilities. The project is estimated to have an annual 
generation of 500-gigawatt-hours, which would be sold to a local 
utility.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Paul Wells, Chairman & Founder, Ocean 
Renewable Power Company, LLC, 2430 NE 199th Street, N. Miami Beach, FL 
33180, phone (305) 936-1515.
    FERC Contact: Patricia W. Gillis (202) 502-8735.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing 
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file 
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice. 
Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing 
applications may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR 
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site 
under the ``e-Filing'' link. If unable to be filed electronically, 
documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an original and eight 
copies should be mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. For 
more information on how to submit these types of filings please go to 
the Commission's Web site located at http://www.ferc.gov/filing-comments.asp. More information about this project can be viewed or 
printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number (P-
12500-003) in the docket number

[[Page 52342]]

field to access the document. For assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-
3372.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-20861 Filed 9-8-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-0813

_____________________________

VINCENT JONES,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Linda F. McCallum, Judge.

October 24, 2018

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS, RAY, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Vincent Jones, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.