alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<XBRL>
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>

<!--XBRL Document Created with the Workiva Platform-->
<!--Copyright 2024 Workiva-->
<!--r:37e04b47-233c-4afc-9169-e4980d9cc477,g:2e46d90d-04e9-4372-a04b-f994a0e8442f-->
<xs:schema xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" xmlns:link="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/linkbase" xmlns:cinf="http://www.cinfin.com/20241112" attributeFormDefault="unqualified" elementFormDefault="qualified" targetNamespace="http://www.cinfin.com/20241112">
  <xs:import namespace="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/instance" schemaLocation="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/xbrl-instance-2003-12-31.xsd"/>
  <xs:import namespace="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/linkbase" schemaLocation="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/xbrl-linkbase-2003-12-31.xsd"/>
  <xs:import namespace="http://xbrl.sec.gov/dei/2024" schemaLocation="https://xbrl.sec.gov/dei/2024/dei-2024.xsd"/>
  <xs:annotation>
    <xs:appinfo>
      <link:linkbaseRef xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:arcrole="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink/properties/linkbase" xlink:href="cinf-20241112_pre.xml" xlink:role="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationLinkbaseRef" xlink:type="simple"/>
      <link:linkbaseRef xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:arcrole="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink/properties/linkbase" xlink:href="cinf-20241112_lab.xml" xlink:role="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/labelLinkbaseRef" xlink:type="simple"/>
      <link:roleType id="CoverPageCoverPage" roleURI="http://www.cinfin.com/role/CoverPageCoverPage">
        <link:definition>0000001 - Document - Cover Page Cover Page</link:definition>
        <link:usedOn>link:presentationLink</link:usedOn>
        <link:usedOn>link:calculationLink</link:usedOn>
        <link:usedOn>link:definitionLink</link:usedOn>
      </link:roleType>
    </xs:appinfo>
  </xs:annotation>
</xs:schema>
</XBRL>
qrhc-ex1027_160.htm



Exhibit 10.27

AMENDMENT TO THE QUEST RESOURCE HOLDING CORPORATION

2012 INCENTIVE COMPENSATION PLAN

WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 10(f) of the Quest Resource Holding Corporation 2012 Incentive Compensation Plan, as amended and restated (the “Plan”), the Board of Directors (the “Board”) of Quest Resource Holding Corporation (the “Company”) may amend, alter, suspend, discontinue or terminate the Plan, subject to stockholder approval of any increase in the number of Shares available under the Plan;

WHEREAS, capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined herein shall have the meaning ascribed to them in the Plan; and

WHEREAS, the Board desires to increase the number of Shares available under the Plan to 4,830,437 Shares. 

NOW, THEREFORE, in accordance with Section 10(f) of the Plan, the Plan shall be amended effective upon stockholder approval as follows: 


	
 
	
1.
	
Amendment.  Section 4(a) of the Plan is hereby amended and restated as follows:




“(a)Limitation on Overall Number of Shares Available for Delivery Under Plan. Subject to adjustment as provided in Section 10(c) hereof, the total number of Shares reserved and available for delivery under the Plan shall be equal to 4,830,437 Shares. Any Shares delivered under the Plan may consist, in whole or in part, of authorized and unissued shares or treasury shares.”

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment to the Plan is adopted as of as of this 10th day of May, 2019.

 


				
	
 
	
QUEST RESOURCE HOLDING CORPORATION 

	
 
	
 

	
 
	
 

	
 
	
By:
	
/s/ S. Ray Hatch

	
 
	
 
	
Name:
	
S. Ray Hatch

	
 
	
 
	
Title:
	
Chief Executive Officer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

STEVEN A . SWAN,

Plaintiffs

V . RI C.A . No . 05-491T

NH C .A . No . 05-401ECT

PAUL J . BARBADORO,

ET AL . ,

Defendants

SHOW CAUSE ORDER

On or before February 15th , 2006 , the plaintiff, Steven Swan,

is hereby ordered to show cause, in writing, why the case should

not be dismissed for lack of prosecution, namely for failure to

serve the named defendants with the complaint in this matter .

Failure to comply will result in dismissal of the case .

By Order ,

ENTER :

Ernest C . Torre s

United States District Judge

Date : k 'N 4zp('

FORK9 /si CAU32 .OP0
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Joshua Manning

v. Civil No. 05-cv-369-SM

Larry Blaisdell, Warden,

Northern New Hampshire

Correctional Facility

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the Court is Joshua Manning’s petition for a writ of

habeas corpus (document no. 1) filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

2254. Manning’s petition includes a claim based on alleged

violations of his Fourth Amendment right to be protected from an

unreasonable search or arrest. As fully discussed in the Order

issued simultaneously with this Report and Recommendation, such a

claim is not cognizable in a habeas action absent a showing that

Manning was not given a full and fair opportunity to litigate

those claims in the state court. See Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S.

465, 494 (1976). For that reason, I recommend this claim be

dismissed.

Any objections to this Report and Recommendation must be

filed within ten (10) days of receipt of this notice. Failure to

Case 1:05-cv-00369-SM Document 4 Filed 10/25/05 Page 1 of 2
2

file objections within the specified time waives the right to

appeal the district court’s order. See Unauthorized Practice of 

Law Comm. v. Gordon, 979 F.2d 11, 13-14 (1st Cir. 1992); United

States v. Valencia-Copete, 792 F.2d 4, 6 (1st Cir. 1986). 

_________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

 

Date: October 25, 2005

cc: Joshua Manning, pro se

Philip Desfosses, Esq.

Sven D. Wiberg, Esq.

Case 1:05-cv-00369-SM Document 4 Filed 10/25/05 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-30-1999
<CASH>                                         630,706
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               13,418,059
<ALLOWANCES>                                 6,502,614
<INVENTORY>                                     46,943
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,641,184
<PP&E>                                         709,324
<DEPRECIATION>                                 370,310
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,012,181
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       11,405,192
<BONDS>                                        350,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  5,153,728
<COMMON>                                           490
<OTHER-SE>                                 (3,743,011)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,012,181
<SALES>                                      4,580,034
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,580,034
<CGS>                                        4,168,113
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,168,113
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               298,354
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               155,949
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,313
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (50,695)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (50,695)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (50,695)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    ($0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  ($0.02)


</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Melissa Whittaker

v. Civil No. 05-cv-349-PB

Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner,

Social Security Administration

O R D E R

After due consideration of defendant’s objection and plaintiff’s response, I

herewith approve the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Muirhead

dated May 19, 2006.

SO ORDERED.

June 18, 2006 /s/ Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

cc: Janine Gawryl, Esq.

David L. Broderick, Esq.

Case 1:05-cv-00349-PB Document 17 Filed 06/18/06 Page 1 of 1
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

City National Bank of Sulphur Springs, Appellant

No. 06

- 15

- 00013

- CV v.

John Alexander Smith, Appellee Appeal from the 62nd District Court of Hopkins County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. CV 40681 ). Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Morriss, Justice Moseley and Justice Burgess participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find reversible error in the judgment of the

court below. Therefore, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and render a take

- nothing
judgment in favor of the Appellant

. We further order that the appell ee , John Alexander Smith , pay all costs of this appeal.

RENDERED MAY 4 , 2016 BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III C HIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
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 the Interior

###### Bureau of Land Management 

          - [NM-920-08-1310FI; TXNM 106958] 

# AGENCY:

Bureau of Land Management, Interior. 

# ACTION:

Notice of Reinstatement of Terminated Oil and Gas Lease. 

# SUMMARY:

Under the Class II provisions of Title IV, Public Law 97-451, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) received a Petition for Reinstatement of Oil and Gas Lease  TXNM 106958 from the lessee, Sun-West Oil and Gas Inc., for lands in Trinity County,  Texas. The petition was filed on time and was accompanied by all the rentals due since the date the lease terminated under the law. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Lourdes B. Ortiz, BLM, New Mexico State Office, at (505) 438-7586. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    No valid lease has been issued that affects the lands. The lessee agrees to new lease terms for rentals and royalties of $10.00 per acre or fraction thereof, per year, and 16                     2/3                     percent, respectively. The lessee paid the required $500.00 administrative fee for the reinstatement of the lease and $166.00 cost for publishing this Notice in the                     **Federal Register**                    . The lessee met all the requirements for reinstatement of the lease as set out in sections 31(d) and (e) of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 188). We are proposing to reinstate lease TXNM 106958, effective the date of termination, September 1, 2007, under the original terms and conditions of the lease and the increased rental and royalty rates cited above.                 

Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. 

Dated: January 31, 2008. 

Lourdes B. Ortiz, 

Land Law Examiner.

 [FR Doc. E8-2129 Filed 2-5-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310-FB-P
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

William Edmondson

v. Civil No. 05-cv-445-JD

N.H. Department of

Corrections, et al.

O R D E R

William Edmondson filed a motion on August 22, 2006, seeking

injunctive relief and suboenas to address his allegations of

tainted testimony at a prior hearing and of ongoing retaliation

against him. Although the title of the motion included the

phrase “Permanent Injunction,” the magistrate judge treated the

motion as seeking a preliminary injunction. After a hearing, the

magistrate judge recommended that the preliminary injunction be

denied, which was approved by the court’s order issued on October

11, 2006. The court issues the following clarification.

The court treated Edmondson’s motion as one seeking

preliminary injunctive relief and that was denied. Edmondson

includes injunctive relief among the remedies he seeks in his

complaint. Edmondson’s claim for permanent injunctive relief, as

alleged in his complaint, has not yet been addressed or resolved.

Case 1:05-cv-00445-JD Document 66 Filed 10/19/06 Page 1 of 2
2

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the plaintiff’s motion filed on

August 22, 2006, (document no. 48) is deemed to be a motion for a

preliminary injunction and subpoenas and was denied as to the

preliminary injunction (documents no. 61 and 65). That part of

the motion which requested a permanent injunction is terminated.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

October 19, 2006

cc: Mary E. Maloney, Esquire

William Edmondson, pro se 

Case 1:05-cv-00445-JD Document 66 Filed 10/19/06 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Margaret P. Lunt

v. Civil No. 04-cv-398-PB

Gregory A. Gaylor

O R D E R

The pretrial order (document no. 13) required defendant to

provide his expert disclosure by June 1, 2005. Defendant’s

untimely expert report, dated in May, was served on September 29,

2005. I allowed the late report over plaintiff’s objection only

because defendant is pro se, in prison, and the prejudice

appeared to be minimal. Additionally, plaintiff assented

provided that it could depose the expert at defendant’s cost. My

order allowed the late disclosure provided that the plaintiff

could depose the expert at defendant’s cost. Defendant moved to

reconsider on the basis, among other things, that he had no

ability to pay the costs (document no. 55). Because plaintiff

did not object to the motion, I granted it. Now ten day late for

an objection plaintiff asks to reconsider (document no. 56), and

defendant wants an order for expert reimbursement (document no.

58).

It would make for a good deal less judicial effort if the

parties obeyed court orders and rules. Because of the tardiness

Case 1:04-cv-00398-PB Document 59 Filed 12/12/05 Page 1 of 2
1This order is not a ruling on the admissibility of the

expert’s proposed testimony.

2

of the expert’s report, the expert’s report is deemed timely

provided he may be deposed without fee to plaintiff.1 Plaintiff

must pay for the court reporter since defendant cannot. The

motion to reconsider (document no. 56) is granted in part. The

motion for expert fees to be paid by plaintiff (document no. 58) 

is denied.

SO ORDERED.

 /s/ James R. Muirhead 

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

December 12, 2005

cc: David H. Bownes, Esquire

Gregory A. Gaylor, pro se

Case 1:04-cv-00398-PB Document 59 Filed 12/12/05 Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

MATTHEW TIMOTHY, 

Defendant.

4:23CR3059

ORDER

Defendant has moved to continue the pretrial motion deadline, (Filing No. 

19), because Defendant needs to consider and decide whether to enter a guilty 

plea. The motion to continue is unopposed. Based on the showing set forth in the 

motion, the court finds the motion should be granted. Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED:

1) Defendant’s motion to continue, (Filing No. 19), is granted.

2) Pretrial motions and briefs shall be filed on or before October 10, 

2023.

3) The conference call previously scheduled to be held on September 

12, 2023, is continued. A telephonic conference with counsel will be 

held before the undersigned magistrate judge at 10:45 a.m. on 

October 17, 2023 to discuss setting any pretrial motion hearing 

needed, a change of plea hearing, or the date of the jury trial and 

deadlines for disclosing experts as required under Rule 16. Counsel 

for all parties shall use the conferencing instructions provided by the 

court to participate in the call.

4) The ends of justice served by granting the motion to continue 

outweigh the interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy 

trial, and the additional time arising as a result of the granting of the 

motion, the time between today’s date and October 17, 2023 shall 

be deemed excludable time in any computation of time under the 

4:23-cr-03059-JMG-CRZ Doc # 20 Filed: 09/07/23 Page 1 of 2 - Page ID # 35
requirements of the Speedy Trial Act, because although counsel 

have been duly diligent, additional time is needed to adequately 

prepare this case for trial and failing to grant additional time might 

result in a miscarriage of justice. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1) & (h)(7). 

Failing to timely object to this order as provided under this court’s 

local rules will be deemed a waiver of any right to later claim the time 

should not have been excluded under the Speedy Trial Act.

Dated this 7th day of September, 2023.

BY THE COURT:

s/ Cheryl R. Zwart

United States Magistrate Judge

4:23-cr-03059-JMG-CRZ Doc # 20 Filed: 09/07/23 Page 2 of 2 - Page ID # 36
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 23, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 05-41083

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERCIA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ARTURO GUITIERREZ-TOVAR,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:04-CR-987-1

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

Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

 Arturo Gutierrez-Tovar (Gutierrez) appeals his guilty plea

conviction for illegally reentering the United States after

having been convicted of an aggravated felony and deported. As

Gutierrez acknowledges, his challenge to the district court’s

eight-level sentence enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G.

§ 2L1.2(b)(1)(C) is foreclosed by circuit precedent. See United

States v. Hinojosa-Lopez, 130 F.3d 691, 693-94 (5th Cir. 1997);

see also United States v. Rivera, 265 F.3d 310, 312-13 (5th Cir.
No. 05-41083

-2-

2001). Gutierrez cites no authority affecting the binding

precedential value of Rivera and Hinojosa-Lopez.

 Gutierrez also argues that the “felony” and “aggravated

felony” provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and (b)(2) are

unconstitutional in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466

(2000). Gutierrez’s constitutional challenge is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). 

Although Gutierrez contends that Almendarez-Torres was

incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court

would overrule Almendarez-Torres in light of Apprendi, we have

repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis that AlmendarezTorres remains binding. See United States v. Garza-Lopez, 410

F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 298 (2005). 

Gutierrez properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in

light of Almendarez-Torres and circuit precedent, but he raises

it here to preserve it for further review.

AFFIRMED.
No. 05-41083

-3-
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<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>                                           1,056
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   28,400
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,211
<INVENTORY>                                     10,709
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                41,927
<PP&E>                                         475,217
<DEPRECIATION>                                 263,509
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 279,912
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           43,058
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            81
<OTHER-SE>                                   (252,332)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   279,912
<SALES>                                         17,072
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                94,156
<CGS>                                            9,484
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   53,320
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   120
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              23,548
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (16,115)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,474)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (17,589)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (17,589)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (2.18)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.18)



</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 123 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
107th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. J. RES. 123

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and 
                          for other purposes.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Public Law 107-229 is 
further amended by striking the date specified in section 107(c) and 
inserting in lieu thereof ``November 22, 2002''.

            Passed the House of Representatives October 16, 2002.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
107th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                             H. J. RES. 123

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and 
                          for other purposes.
```