alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|   INVESTOR CONTACT:      |   |   |   MEDIA CONTACT: |
|------------------------------------|--------|--------|----------------------------|
| Luke Szymczak                      |   |   | Brigid Smith               |
| Vice President, Investor Relations |   |   | AVP, Corp. Comm.           |
| (203) 614-5044                     |   |   | (203) 614-5042             |
| luke.szymczak@ftr.com              |   |   | brigid.smith@ftr.com       |
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 Homeland Security

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency 

          - [FEMA-1783-DR] 

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS. 

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of New Mexico (FEMA-1783-DR), dated August 14, 2008, and related determinations. 

# DATES:

*Effective Date:*                         August 20, 2008.                     

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3886. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Notice is hereby given that the incident period for this disaster is closed effective August 20, 2008. 

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households in Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.)

R. David Paulison, 

Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

[FR Doc. E8-20833 Filed 9-8-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110-10-P
#### CITY OF HOLLYWOOD et al. v. STATE ex rel. BEN HUR LIFE ASS’N.

Supreme Court of Florida, Division A.

July 29, 1936.

C. H. Landefeld, Jr., of Hollywood, for plaintiffs in error.

Casey & Walton, of Miami, and W. K. Whitfield, of Tallahassee, for defendant in error.

*589DAVIS, Justice.

In this case it was stipulated and agreed by counsel for plaintiffs in error and by counsel for defendant in error that the legal questions involved in the above-styled cause are identical with those involved in that certain cause wherein the City of Fort Lauderdale et al., are plaintiffs in error and State ex rel. Elston Bank & Trust Company, etc., is defendant in error (Fla.) 169 So. 584, which last mentioned case has this day been decided by affirming the judgment rendered therein. It has further been stipulated between the counsel aforesaid that this cause may be disposed of upon the basis of the briefs and argument submitted in the said Fort Lauderdale Case this day decided.

Therefore, in accordance with the stipulation of the parties filed herein and in consideration. of the disposition of the companion case aforesaid, it is now considered, ordered, and adjudged that the judgment of the circuit court appealed from in this case be, and the same is hereby, affirmed.

Affirmed.

WHITFIELD, C. J., and TERRELL, BROWN, and BUFORD, JJ., concur.,

ELLIS, P. J., not participating.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-11078

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

DANTANA TANKSLEY, 

 Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC

Before REAVLEY, ELROD, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

REAVLEY, Circuit Judge:

The government has filed a petition for en banc rehearing. The en banc 

petition remains pending. This court supplements its opinion entered on 

petition for panel rehearing to reaffirm that, under Texas law, section 

481.112(a) of the Texas Health and Safety Code is indivisible and “establishes 

alternative means of punishing an offense in the continuum of drug 

distribution.” Weinn v. State, 326 S.W.3d 189, 194 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010); see

United States v. Tanksley, 848 F.3d 347, 352 (5th Cir. 2017). We reached this 

conclusion based on Lopez v. State, 108 S.W.3d 293 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). In 

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 13, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-11078 Document: 00513952560 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/13/2017
No. 15-11078

2

urging the en banc court to rehear the case, the government argues our holding 

“is clearly inconsistent with Guerrero v. State, 305 S.W.3d 546 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2009), which controls the issue and holds that manufacturing and possessing 

with intent to deliver a controlled substance are separate offenses.” The 

government’s argument is misguided because it is drawn from a plurality 

opinion. Weinn makes clear that Guerrero never upset Lopez. Weinn, 326 

S.W.3d at 193 (footnotes omitted) (explaining that, in Guerrero, the “majority, 

comprised of two concurring judges and three dissenting judges, noted that the 

legislature did not intend multiple punishments for manufacture and 

simultaneous possession with intent to deliver with respect to a single quantity 

of controlled substances.”). Without a doubt, Weinn “definitively” establishes 

that Section 481.112 is an indivisible statute. See Mathis v. United States, 136 

S.Ct. 2243, 2256 (2016).1

 

1 We note a typographical error in the original Opinion, which wrongly referenced 

“Hinkle’s holding that Section 481.112 is divisible.” Hinkle, of course, found Section 481.112

to be indivisible. To avoid any future confusion, we also note that our harmless error analysis 

relied exclusively on the test set forth in United States v. Ibarra-Luna, 628 F.3d 712 (5th Cir. 

2010), because the district court did not consider the correct guidelines range. See United 

States v. Richardson, 676 F.3d 491, 511 (5th Cir. 2012) (“[A] guidelines calculation error is 

harmless where the district court has considered the correct guidelines range and has stated 

that it would impose the same sentence even if that range applied.”).

 Case: 15-11078 Document: 00513952560 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/13/2017
**EXHIBIT 32**

 

**Pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the following certifications are being made toaccompany the Registrant’s annual report on Form 10-K for the fiscal yearended July 31, 2010**

 

**Certification of Chief Executive Officer**(1)

 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersignedofficer of Neiman Marcus, Inc. (the Company) hereby certifies, to suchofficer’s knowledge, that:

 

(i)            the Annual Reporton Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2010(the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) orSection 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended; and

 

(ii)           the informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| Dated: October 1, 2010 | /S/ BURTON M. TANSKY                   |
|------------------------|----------------------------------------|
|                   | Burton M. Tansky                       |
|                   | President and Chief  Executive Officer |

 

**Certification of Chief Financial Officer**(1)

 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersignedofficer of Neiman Marcus, Inc. (the Company) hereby certifies, to suchofficer’s knowledge, that:

 

(i)            the Annual Reporton Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2010(the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) orSection 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended; and

 

(ii)           the informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| Dated: October 1, 2010 | /s/ JAMES E. SKINNER                                  |
|------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------|
|                   | James E. Skinner                                      |
|                   | Executive Vice President  and Chief Financial Officer |

 

----

| (1) | A signed original of this  written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Neiman  Marcus, Inc. and will be retained by Neiman Marcus, Inc. and  furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon  request. |
|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

----
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Pablo HOFFMAN-PORTILLO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 02-51037

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Aug. 14, 2003.

*373Before GARWOOD, HIGGINBOTHAM and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Pablo Hofftnan-Portillo (Hoffman) appeals his conviction for importation of marihuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952(a), 960(a)(1), and for possession with intent to distribute marihuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Hoffman argues that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion for a new trial on the ground of juror misconduct.

In support of his motion, Hoffman attached the affidavit of a juror, Jan Dobrin, in which Dobrin stated that after the jury had been sworn and before evidence was taken, another juror stated, “[w]here there’s smoke, there’s fire,” and “[T]he police don’t arrest you for nothing.” Dobrin’s affidavit, however, is inadmissible pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b). *See United States v. Ortiz,*942 F.2d 903, 913 (5th Cir.1991). We also conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to investigate the allegations of juror misconduct and in denying Hoffman’s motion for a new trial. *See United States v. Rivera,*295 F.3d 461, 470 (5th Cir.2002); *Grooms v. Wainwright,*610 F.2d 344, 347 (5th Cir. 1980).

Moreover, to the extent that Hoffman argues that the district court should have entertained evidence concerning, or further investigated the possibility of, juror bias based on Dobrin’s affidavit, that argument is also without merit. “The proper time to discover such [juror prejudice] is when the jury is being selected and peremptory challenges are available to the attorneys.” *United States v. Duzac,*622 F.2d 911, 913 (5th Cir.1980). A jury’s “verdict may not be disturbed if it is later learned that personal prejudices were not put aside during deliberations.” *Id.*Moreover, even where jurors may have made “premature expressions as to guilt, we generally defer to the district court’s decision as to whether the defendant received a fair trial by an impartial jury.” *United States v. Collins,*972 F.2d 1385, 1404 (5th Cir.1992).

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5 the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-Q
FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           8,266
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  138,271
<ALLOWANCES>                                       995
<INVENTORY>                                     36,914
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               249,135
<PP&E>                                         139,913
<DEPRECIATION>                                  79,892
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 333,127
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          109,885
<BONDS>                                         30,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        33,549
<OTHER-SE>                                     150,471
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   333,127
<SALES>                                        355,159
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               355,159
<CGS>                                          305,387
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  305,387
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 903
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 21,062
<INCOME-TAX>                                     8,412
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             12,650
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    12,650
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.74
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.68


</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 12.1

                                    PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY
                              COMPUTATION OF RATIOS OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                              For the
                                               Three
                                               Months
                                                Ended                  For the Years Ended
                                               March 31,                   December 31,
                                              ----------------------------------------------------------
                                              2005    2004     2004    2003     2002     2001     2000
                                              ----------------------------------------------------------
                                                              (Millions, except ratios)
<S>                                           <C>     <C>      <C>    <C>      <C>      <C>       <C>
Earnings as Defined in Regulation S-K (A):

Pre-tax Income from Continuing Operations      $204   $219     $592   $ 376    $ 320     $ 324     $ 994
Fixed Charges                                    84     96      362     390      408       461       447
                                              -----------------------------------------------------------
Total Earnings                                 $288   $315     $954   $ 766    $ 728     $ 785   $ 1,441
                                              ===========================================================

Fixed Charges as Defined in
Regulation S-K (B)

Interest Expense                                $84    $96     $362  $  390   $  406    $  458    $  444
Interest Factor in Rentals                        -      -        -       -        2         3         3
                                              -----------------------------------------------------------
Total Fixed Charges                             $84    $96     $362  $  390   $  408    $  461    $  447
                                              ===========================================================

Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges             3.43   3.28     2.64    1.96     1.78      1.70      3.22
                                              ===========================================================
</TABLE>


 (A)  The term "earnings" shall be defined as pretax income from continuing
      operations. Add to pretax income the amount of fixed charges adjusted to
      exclude the amount of any interest capitalized during the period.

(B)   Fixed Charges represent (a) interest, whether expensed or capitalized, (b)
      amortization of debt discount, premium and expense and (c) an estimate of
      interest implicit in rentals.
#### In the Matter of 166 Mamaroneck Avenue Corp., Appellant, v 151 East Post Road Corp., Respondent.

In a proceeding, *inter alia,*to compel arbitration, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Marbach, J.), entered February 14, 1989, which dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the petition is granted.

A renewal provision in the lease between the petitioner tenant and the respondent landlord provides the tenant with the "right, option and privilege” to renew the lease for a 21-year term. The lease also provides that if the parties are unable to agree upon the amount of rent for the renewal term, "the same shall be fixed by arbitration as provided for by the Civil Practice Act of the State of New York”.

The tenant sought to renew the lease, but the parties were unable to agree as to the amount of rent. In this proceeding, the tenant seeks, *inter alia,*to compel the appointment of an arbitrator pursuant to CPLR 7504 (former Civ Prac Act § 1452), to determine the amount of rent for the tenant’s renewal term.

The landlord argues that the proceeding was properly dismissed, as the renewal provision leaves the material aspect of rent for future negotiation and is, thus, merely an agreement to agree, which is unenforceable under the law of this State. We disagree. Here, as in *Cobble Hill Nursing Home v Henry & Warren Corp.*(74 NY2d 475, 483), "the option manifests the parties’ unmistakable intent that price was to be fixed by a third person * * * itself providing an objective standard without the need for further expressions by the parties” *(see also,*74 NY Jur 2d, Landlord and Tenant, § 361; 1 Corbin, Contracts § 98, at 435-436 [1963]). Rubin, J. P., Eiber, Rosenblatt and Miller, JJ., concur.
**EXHIBIT 32.6**

 

**Certification Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18**

**of the United States Code**

 

I, E. James Ferland, Chief Executive Officer of PSEG Energy Holdings L.L.C., to the best of my knowledge, certify that (i) the Quarterly Report of PSEG Energy Holdings L.L.C. on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 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 PSEG Energy Holdings L.L.C.

 

 

|   |   |   | /s/ E. James Ferland        |
|--------|--------|--------|-----------------------------|
|   |   |   | **E. James Ferland**        |
|   |   |   | PSEG Energy Holdings L.L.C. |
|   |   |   | Chief Executive Officer     |
|   |   |   | November 1, 2006            |

 

 

 

----
IA

107TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. J. RES. 108

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to guarantee the right to use and recite the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag

and the national motto.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 25, 2002

Mr. PICKERING (for himself, Mr. PITTS, Mrs. CAPITO, Mr. HAYES, Mr.

WATTS of Oklahoma, Mr. NORWOOD, Mr. WAMP, Mr. BROWN of South

Carolina, Mr. THUNE, Mr. BRADY of Texas, and Mr. OXLEY) introduced

the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the

Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United

States to guarantee the right to use and recite the

Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag and the national motto.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two3 thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when

7 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several
2

•HJ 108 IH

1 States within seven years after the date of its submission

2 for ratification:

3 ‘‘ARTICLE —

4 ‘‘SECTION 1. The first article of amendment to the

5 Constitution of the United States shall not be construed

6 to prohibit the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance to

7 the Flag, which shall be, ‘I pledge allegiance to the Flag

8 of the United States of America, and to the Republic for

9 which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with

10 liberty and justice for all.’.

11 ‘‘SECTION 2. The first article of amendment to the

12 Constitution of the United States shall not be construed

13 to prohibit the recitation or use of the national motto,

14 which shall be, ‘In God we trust’.’’.

Æ
Amendment No. 1 to 1999 Employee Share Purchase Plan



 EXHIBIT 10.5 
  
 AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO 
 STANCORP FINANCIAL GROUP, INC. 
 1999 EMPLOYEE SHARE PURCHASE PLAN 
  
 In accordance with Section 19 of the StanCorp Financial Group, Inc. 1999 Employee Share
Purchase Plan (“the Plan”), the Board of Directors of StanCorp Financial Group, Inc. (“the Company”) has approved and the Company hereby adopts the following amendment to the Plan: 
  
 Section 5(a) of the Plan is amended to provide in its entirety as follows: 
  
 5. Offerings. 
  
 (a) Offering Periods. The Plan shall be implemented by a
series of offering periods of approximately six months’ duration or such other duration as the Board of Directors shall determine (“Offering Periods”), commencing on or about January 1 of each year and on or about June 16 of each
year. An Offering Period commencing on or about January 1 shall end on or about the next June 15. An Offering Period commencing on or about June 16 shall end on or about the next December 15. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Board of Directors may
establish different commencement or ending dates or a different duration for one or more future Offering Periods; provided however, that no Offering Period may have a duration exceeding twenty-seven (27) months. 
  
 The first day of each Offering Period is an “Offering Date” and the
last day of each Offering Period is “Purchase Date” for the Offering Period. If an Offering Date or a Purchase Date falls on a day on which the public equity securities markets in the United States are not open for trading, the Company
shall, by announcement at least ten days before the date on which the Offering Date or Purchase Date would otherwise fall, specify the trading day that will be deemed that Offering Date or Purchase Date, as the case may be. 
  
 Date approved by Board of Directors: November 4, 2001