alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

CASE NO. 05-17-00141-CV

__________________________________________________________________

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

_________________________________________________________________

IN THE INTEREST OF C.F.M AND B.C.M., MINOR CHILDREN

__________________________________________________________________

ON APPEAL FROM CAUSE NO. DF-09-00259 IN THE

55TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE 

MOTION FOR PANEL REHEARING

__________________________________________________________________

TO THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS:

Appellant Stewart McCray respectfully moves for a 4-day extension of time, 

up to and including June 8, 2018, in which to file a motion for rehearing, and in 

support thereof, Stewart would respectfully show the Court the following:

1. On May 18, 2018, this Court issued an opinion in this case, making a 

motion for rehearing due by June 4, 2018.

2. Appellant moves for a 4-day extension of time, up to and including June 

8, 2018, in which to file his motion for rehearing.

3. Good cause exists for the extension sought. For the past few weeks 

counsel and his family have been in and out of his house while a member of his 

family was dealing with an acute bout of mental illness.

ACCEPTED

05-17-00141-CV

FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS

DALLAS, TEXAS

6/4/2018 8:57 PM

LISA MATZ

CLERK

 FILED IN 5th COURT OF APPEALS DALLAS, TEXAS 6/4/2018 8:57:35 PM LISA MATZ Clerk
2

4. No further extensions of time will be sought on this motion for 

rehearing, which is not sought for purposes of delay, but so that a proper motion may 

be presented to this Court. 

Wherefore, premises considered, Appellants prays that this motion be granted 

and that the time for filing a motion for rehearing be extended 4 days, up to and 

including June 8, 2018. 

Respectfully submitted,

__________________________

ALAN B. DAUGHTRY

State Bar No: 00793583

3355 West Alabama, Suite 444

Houston, Texas 77098

Telephone: (281) 300-5202

Facsimile: (281) 404-4478

alan@alandaughtrylaw.com

EDWARD B. KLEIN

Attorney at Law

State Bar No. 11557000

1201 Walnut Street, Suite 6

Carrollton, Texas 75006-6285

(972) 245-0230

(972) 245-0030 FAX

Email: edkleinlaw@msn.com
3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was sent by electronic 

service via ProDoc E-filing to the Counsel for Appellee, Chris Nicholson, on June

4, 2018:

 ___________________________

ALAN B. DAUGHTRY
IA

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 53

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States requiring

a two-thirds vote to pass legislation that would result in a deficit in

the budget of the United States for any fiscal period.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 20, 2001

Mr. TANNER (for himself, Mr. BOSWELL, Mr. MOORE, Mr. STENHOLM, Mr.

CARSON of Oklahoma, Mr. LUCAS of Kentucky, Mr. BACA, Mr. HILL, Mr.

MATHESON, Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi, Mr. JOHN, Mr. TURNER, Mr.

SHOWS, Mr. SCHIFF, and Mr. SANDLIN) 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 requiring a two-thirds vote to pass legislation

that would result in a deficit in the budget of the United

States for any fiscal period.

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 53 IH

1 States within seven years after the date of its submission

2 for ratification:

3 ‘‘ARTICLE—

4 ‘‘SECTION 1. Any bill, resolution, or other legislative

5 measure the enactment of which would result in a deficit

6 in the budget of the United States for any fiscal period

7 shall require for final adoption in each House the concur8 rence of two-thirds of the Members of that House voting

9 and present. On any vote for which the concurrence of

10 two-thirds is required under this article, the yeas and nays

11 of the Members of either House shall be entered on the

12 Journal of that House.

13 ‘‘SECTION 2. The Congress may waive the require14 ments of this article when a declaration of war is in effect.

15 The Congress may also waive this article when the United

16 States is engaged in military conflict which causes an im17 minent and serious threat to national security and is so

18 declared by a joint resolution, adopted by a majority of

19 the whole number of each House, which becomes law. Any

20 such waiver shall be effective for not longer than two

21 years.’’.

Æ
Reddick v. Wadeling Doc. 3

Dockets.Justia.com
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 12.1
                        SECURITY CAPITAL PACIFIC TRUST
               COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                         (Dollar amounts in thousands)

                                  (Unaudited)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
 
 
                                    Three months ended
                                         March 31,                                Twelve Months Ended December 31,
                                         ---------                 -------------------------------------------------------------
                                      1997      1996                 1996           1995         1994          1993       1992
                                      ----      ----                 ----           ----         ----          ----       ----  
<S>                                 <C>       <C>                 <C>            <C>           <C>           <C>        <C>       
Earnings from operations.........    $20,276   $22,920             $ 94,089       $ 81,696      $ 46,719      $23,191    $ 9,037
Add:                                                                                                                  
 Interest Expense................     13,961     6,520               35,288         19,584        19,442        3,923      3,214
                                    -------    ------              --------       --------      --------      -------    -------
Earnings as adjusted.............    $34,237   $29,440             $129,377       $101,280      $ 66,161      $27,114    $12,251
                                     =======   =======             ========       ========      ========      =======    =======
Fixed charges:                                                                                                        
 Interest Expense................    $13,961   $ 6,520             $ 35,288       $ 19,584      $ 19,442      $ 3,923    $ 3,214
 Capitalized interest............      4,427     3,497               16,941         11,741         6,029        2,818        989
                                     -------   -------             --------       --------      --------      -------    -------
 Total fixed charges.............    $18,388   $10,017             $ 52,229       $ 31,325      $ 25,471      $ 6,741    $ 4,203
                                     =======   =======             ========       ========      ========      =======    =======
Ratio of earnings to fixed               1.9       2.9                  2.5            3.2           2.6          4.0        2.9
 charges.........................    =======   =======             ========       ========      ========      =======    =======
</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.8

AMENDMENT NUMBER THREE

TO THE

REWARDS NETWORK INC.

2006 NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR AWARDS PROGRAM

WHEREAS, Rewards Network Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Corporation), has heretofore adopted and maintains the Rewards Network Inc. 2006 Non-Employee Director Awards Program (the
Program); and

WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Corporation has retained the power to amend the Program.

NOW THEREFORE, pursuant to the power of amendment contained in Section 8.3 of the Program, the Program is hereby
amended, effective as of the date hereof, as follows:

1. The definition of Plan in Article II of the Program is
hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:

Plan means the Corporations 2006 Long-Term Incentive
Plan, as the same may be amended from time to time.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Corporation has caused this instrument to be
executed by its duly authorized officer on this 16th day of August, 2010.



REWARDS NETWORK INC.By:    /s/ Ronald L. BlakeName: Ronald L. BlakeTitle: President and CEO
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 178 (Friday, September 12, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 53025]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-21300]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings 
required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications also will be available 
for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested 
persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated 
in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the 
acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether 
the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards 
in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, 
nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States. 
Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained 
from the National Information Center website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the 
offices of the Board of Governors not later than October 9, 2008.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (Burl Thornton, Assistant Vice 
President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:
    1. Tompkins Bancorp, Inc., Avon, Illinois; to acquire 100 percent 
of the voting shares of Community Bank of Galesburg, Galesburg, 
Illinois.
    B. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas (W. Arthur Tribble, Vice 
President) 2200 North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201-2272:
    1. Lone Star First Holdings, Inc., Dallas, Texas; to become a bank 
holding company by acquiring 100 percent of the voting shares of Kent 
County State Bank, Jayton, Texas.



    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, September 9, 
2008.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. E8-21300 Filed 9-12-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
EXHIBIT 32





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF


THE SARBANES OXLEY ACT OF 2002


The certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with this report on Form 10-Q for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Exchange Act and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.





Steven J. Johnston, the chairman and chief executive officer, and Michael J. Sewell, the chief financial officer, of Cincinnati Financial Corporation each certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:


1. the report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and


2. the information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Cincinnati Financial Corporation.





Date: July 27, 2023





/S/ Steven J. JohnstonSteven J. Johnston, FCAS, MAAA, CFA, CERAChairman and Chief Executive Officer/S/ Michael J. SewellMichael J. Sewell, CPAChief Financial Officer, Executive Vice President and Treasurer(Principal Accounting Officer)
207 La. 1009

#### HOWZE v. HOLLANDSWORTH.

No. 37823.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 30, 1945.

Dhu Thompson, of Monroe, for relator.

Thomas W. Davenport, of Monroe, for respondent.

HAWTPIORNE, Justice.

From an order of the Fourth Judicial District Court in and for the Parish of Ouachita, dated March 1, 1945, permitting defendant and respondent, Hubert Hol-landsworth, to take the testimony of witnesses residing outside the State of Louisiana de bene esse, under the provisions of Act 143 of the Regular Session of 1934 of the Legislature of the State of Louisiana, plaintiff and relator, Mrs. Ethel Howze, applied to this court for writs of certio-rari, prohibition, and mandamus.

On March 9, 1945, this court issued an order directed to the Fourth Judicial District Court in and for the Parish of Oua-chita, State of Louisiana, to rescind the order of that court permitting the testimony to be taken de bene esse, and to permit the defendant and respondent to take the testimony of the witnesses residing outside the state by depositions and by the propounding of interrogatories and cross-interrogatories under a commission to be issued by the judge; or, if the judge did not see fit to rescind the order for the taking of the testimony de bene esse and in lieu thereof allow the testimony to be taken by depositions in answer to interrogatories and cross-interrogatories under a commission, he, the district judge, and the respondent in this case, Hubert Hollands-worth, were ordered to show cause in this court on or before March 26, 1945, why the order dated March 1, for the taking of the testimony de bene esse, should not be rescinded and why the defendant should not be allowed to take the testimony by depositions in answer to interrogatories and cross-interrogatories under a commission to be issued .by the judge. This order of this court stayed and suspended all proceedings for the taking of the testimony de bene esse under the order of the lower court dated March 1, 1945.

*471The district judge, pursuant to our order, made a return, which return shows that the order of the district court dated March 1, 1945, authorizing the taking of said testimony de bene esse of the witnesses residing outside the State of Louisiana, was rescinded and set aside on motion of counsel for defendant, Hubert Hol-landsworth, respondent herein.

The order to which plaintiff and relator objected having been set aside, there remains nothing before us for review.

For the above reason, it is ordered that relator’s application for writs of certio-rari, prohibition, and mandamus be, and the same is hereby, dismissed; respondent, Hubert Hollandsworth, to pay all costs of the proceedings in this court.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Dennis A. Smith

v. Case No. 05-cv-362-PB

 05-cv-374-JD

New Hampshire State Prison, et al.

NOTICE OF RULING

Re: Document No. 5, 05-cv-374-JD,

 Motion to Consolidate Cases

Ruling: Motion granted. What plaintiff has characterized as

a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum is a motion

for specified relief in his civil rights action rather than a

distinct claim for relief. That motion is denied without

prejudice. Case No. 05-cv-362-PB shall be closed. 

Entered by: Paul Barbadoro, District Judge

Date: December 14, 2005

cc: Dennis A. Smith, pro se

 NH Attorney General

 NH Department of Corrections

Case 1:05-cv-00374-JD Document 10 Filed 12/14/05 Page 1 of 1
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6661

CALVIN LYNDALE GADDY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

THE SOUTH CAROLINA DISTRICT COURTS, For recusal/bias, For 

Bivens Action/Prejudices,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Anderson. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District 

Judge. (8:13-cv-02387-JFA)

Submitted: August 28, 2014 Decided: September 3, 2014

Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Calvin Lyndale Gaddy, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Calvin Lyndale Gaddy appeals the district court’s 

orders adopting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation 

and dismissing his civil complaint, and denying reconsideration. 

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district 

court. Gaddy v. S.C. Dist. Courts, No. 8:13-cv-02387-JFA

(D.S.C. Mar. 18, 2014; Apr. 28, 2014). We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### RIVERVIEW ENTERPRISES, Inc., a Corporation, Appellant, v. Luther JORDAN and Thelma G. Jordan, his Wife, Appellees.

Supreme Court of Florida. Division A.

Oct. 22, 1954.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 06-cr-25-01-PB

Brandon Deane

O R D E R

The defendant has moved to continue the April 4, 2006 trial

in the above case, citing the need for additional time to review

discovery and prepare a defense. The government does not object

to a continuance of the trial date.

Accordingly, in order to allow the parties additional time

to properly prepare for trial, the court will continue the trial

from April 4, 2006 to July 6, 2006. In agreeing to continue the

trial, the court finds pursuant to 18 U.S.C.A. § 3161(h)(8)(A)

that for the above-stated reasons, the ends of justice served in

granting a continuance outweigh the best interests of the public

and the defendant in a speedy trial.

Case 1:06-cr-00025-PB Document 9 Filed 03/17/06 Page 1 of 2
2

The March 24, 2006 final pretrial conference is continue to

June 26, 2006 at 4:15 p.m.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

March 17, 2006

cc: Michael Iacopino, Esq.

Debra Walsh, AUSA

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:06-cr-00025-PB Document 9 Filed 03/17/06 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM NATIONAL
PRESTO INDUSTRIES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                                OCT-1-1995
<CASH>                                          97,616
<SECURITIES>                                   101,610
<RECEIVABLES>                                   29,386
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     37,177
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               265,935
<PP&E>                                          17,001
<DEPRECIATION>                                  10,275
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 280,449
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           42,834
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                         7,441
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                     230,174
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   280,449
<SALES>                                         62,883
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                62,883
<CGS>                                           43,503
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   43,503
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 516
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 12,045
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,204
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              9,841
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     9,841
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.35
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 35.1
                  SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT (ITEM 1123)
                        RESIDENTIAL FUNDING COMPANY, LLC
              RAMP SERIES 2006-RS3 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 April 1, 2006 (as amended from time to time, the "Agreement"), among
Residential Asset Mortgage  Products,  Inc., as depositor,  Residential  Funding
Company, LLC (formerly Residential Funding Corporation), as master servicer, and
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Lisa Babel

v. Case No. 05-cv-206-SM

Curran Management Services, Inc.

Tammy Koehler

v. Case No. 05-cv-208-SM

Curran Management Services, Inc.

Re: Document No. 11, Response to Order to Show Cause

Ruling: 

While it is decidedly questionable whether this case was

properly or timely removed, it does not appear necessary to

resolve those issues in light of the Plaintiff's notice (document

no. 12) indicating her intent to file a Title VII claim

(presumably exhausted), over which this court will have federal

question jurisdiction, and indicating her lack of opposition to

the Defendant's objection to remand. The court will not order

remand, deeming all objections to removal to have been waived by

the Plaintiff.

Date: September 8, 2005

cc: H. Jonathan Meyer, Esq.

 Douglas A. Troyer, Esq.

 Thomas O. Moriarty, Esq.

Case 1:05-cv-00208-SM Document 13 Filed 09/08/05 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Criminal No. 05-cr-284-01-SM

Robert A. Cennami

ORDER OF RECUSAL

As I own stock in CVS Corporation, I am required to, and

hereby do recuse myself from presiding over sentencing in this

case. See 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(4).

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

October 11, 2007

cc: Clyde R. W. Garrigan, AUSA

Bjorn R. Lange, Esq.

Melissa A. Elworthy, USPO

Case 1:05-cr-00284-PB Document 30 Filed 10/11/07 Page 1 of 1