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


SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Washington, DC 20549








FORM 8-K








CURRENT REPORT


Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934








Date of Report (date of earliest event reported):  February 14, 2012





Frontier Communications Corporation


(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)





Delaware


(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation)





001-11001
06-0619596(Commission File Number)
(IRS Employer Identification No.)3 High Ridge Park, Stamford, Connecticut
06905(Address of principal executive offices)
(Zip Code)





(203) 614-5600


(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)





_________________


(Former name or former address, if changed since last report.)





Check the appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to simultaneously satisfy the filing obligation of the registrant under any of the following provisions (seeGeneral Instruction A.2. below):





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





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





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





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





Item 8.01
Other Events




The information set forth in the press release issued by Frontier Communications Corporation on February 14, 2012, attached hereto as Exhibit 99.1, is incorporated herein by reference.




Item 9.01
Financial Statements and Exhibits




(d)           Exhibits




99.1
Press Release of Frontier Communications Corporation released on February 14, 2012.












SIGNATURES







Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned hereunto duly authorized.










FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATIONDate:  February 14, 2012
By:/s/ Susana D’EmicSusana D’EmicSenior Vice President and Controller
Exhibit 4.1

 



FINANCIAL   CORPORATI ON 13282 INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE CUSIP   01446U 10 3 AUTHORIZED: 30,000,000 COMMON SHARES, $1.00 PAR VALUE PER SHARE   SEE REVERSE FOR CERTAIN DEFINITIONS This Certifies That is the owner of Fully   Paid and Non-Assessable Common Stock, $1.00 Par Value of ALERUS FINANCIAL   CORPORATION transferable on the books of this Corporation in person or by   attomey u pon surrend er of this Certificate duly endorsed or assig ned. This   Certificat e and the shares represent ed hereby are subject to the laws of   the Stat e of Delaware, and t o the Articles of Incorporation and the Bylaws   of the Corporation , as now or h ereafter amended. This Certificat e is not   valid until countersigned by the Transfer Agent. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the   Corporation ha s caused this Certificate t o be signed by the facsimile sig   natures of its dul y authorized officers and to be sealed with the facsimile   seal of the Corporation. Dated: :::f< "cb M.) . '-"oPRESIDENT 


    




 










ALERUS   FINANCIAL CORPORATION AMERICAN STOCK TRANSFER & TRUST CO. TRANSFER FEE:   AS REQUIRED The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the   face of this certificate, shall be construed as though they were written out   in full according to applicable Jaws or regulations: TEN COM - as tenants in   common TEN ENT - as tenants by the entireties JT TEN - as joint tenants with   right of survivorship and not as tenants in common UNIF GIFT MIN ACT -   -....,.,---Co!.!us to!.!ld ia:!!!n!.._ (Cust) (Minor) under Uniform Gifts to   Minors Act (State) Additional abbreviations may also be used though not in   the above list. PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF   ASSIGNEE FOR VALUE RECEIVED.----------------------------hereby sell. assign   and transfer unto PLEASE PRINT OR TYPEWRITE NAME AND ADDRESS INCLUDING POSTAL   ZIP CODE OF ASSIGNEE   ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------Sh   es of the Common Stock represented by the within Certificate and do hereby   irrevocably constitute and appoint ------- ---------- --- -   -------------------- -Attorney to transfer the said stock on the books of the   within-named Corporation, with full power of substitution in the premises.   Dated:. 20. _ Signature:X Signature(s) Guaranteed: Signature: X THE   SIGNATURE(S) TO THIS ASSIGNMENT MUST CORRESPOND WITH THE NAME(S) AS WRITTEN   UPON THE FACE OF THE CERTIFICATE IN EVERY PARTICULAR. WITHOUT ALTERATION OR   ENLARGEMENT OR ANY CHANGE WHATEVER. THE SIGNATURE(S) SHOULD BE GUARANTEED BY   AN ELIGIBLE GUARANTOR INSTITUTION (Banks. Stockbrokers. Savings and Loan   Associations and Credit Unions) WITH MEMBERSHIP IN AN APPROVED SIGNATURE   GUARANTEE MEDALLION PROGRAM.PURSUANT TO S.E.C. RULE 17Ad-15.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

James Wellington,

Plaintiff

v. Civil No. 04-cv-478-SM

Acting Warden of the

Northern New Hampshire

Correctional Facility,

Defendant

O R D E R

Petitioner has filed a motion to reconsider (document no.

15) the court's denial of his earlier motion to proceed in forma

pauperis (document no. 12). That motion to reconsider is

granted. Having reviewed the matter, it is apparent that the

court erroneously juxtaposed two electronic rulings in ECF on two

of petitioner's motions that were submitted to the court

electronically together. Thus, the motion to proceed in forma

pauperis was marked "denied" when it should have been marked

"granted." In addition, however, the other motion - for a

certificate of appealability (document no. 11) - was erroneously

marked "granted" when it was intended to be marked "denied." In

fairness to petitioner, the court has revisited and considered

anew his earlier motion for a certificate of appealability, and

has carefully reviewed the court's order and opinion granting

Case 1:04-cv-00478-SM Document 19 Filed 02/17/06 Page 1 of 2
2

summary judgment to defendant. The court reaffirms its earlier

intended ruling. But for an administrative error by the

undersigned judge, the ruling on petitioner's request for a

certificate of appealability would have been docketed as

"denied," and that error shall be corrected. In addition, having

sua sponte reconsidered the matter on the merits, as well as

identifying the administrative error, the court reaffirms that

the motion for a certificate of appealability is denied;

petitioner failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of

a constitutional right. Obviously, however, nothing prevents the

petitioner from seeking a certificate of appealability from the

United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. The motion

to proceed in forma pauperis (document no. 12) is granted. The

motion for a certificate of appealability (document no. 11) is

denied." 

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

February 17, 2006

cc: David M. Rothstein, Esq.

Susan P. McGinnis, Esq.

Case 1:04-cv-00478-SM Document 19 Filed 02/17/06 Page 2 of 2
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IRENE CARBAJAL,

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

§ 

No. 08-18-00081-CR

Appeal from the

County Criminal Court No. 2

of El Paso County, Texas 

(TC# 20170C10979) 

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no reversible 

error in the judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. This decision shall 

be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019.

TERRY JENNINGS, Senior Judge

Before Rodriguez, J., Palafox, J., and Jennings, Senior Judge

Jennings, Senior Judge (Sitting by Assignment)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<CIK> 0000081100
<NAME> PUGET SOUND ENERGY, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                    3,162,059
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                    269,397
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         365,521
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                             0
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                 471,403
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,268,380
<COMMON>                                       845,613
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                      447,446
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                             87,714
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>               1,380,773
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           86,640
<PREFERRED>                                    215,000
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                         1,165,595
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                             180,300
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                  69,586
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                   99,948
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>               1,070,538
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                4,268,380
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      463,319
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                          (14,905)
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     421,396
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     406,491
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                         56,828
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                               4,884
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                  61,712
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        29,104
<NET-INCOME>                                    29,986
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                      5,549
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                   24,437
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        33,897
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                       22,544
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                         123,792
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.29
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.29
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1
COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER SHARE                                  EXHIBIT 11
Quaker State Corporation and Subsidiaries

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                  Three Months Ended
                                                                3/31/97      3/31/96
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(in thousands except per share data, unaudited)

<S>                                                            <C>          <C>       
1.  Net income                                                 $    6,865   $    5,706
                                                               ==========   ==========

2.  Average number of shares of capital
    stock outstanding                                              34,868       32,819

3.  Shares issuable upon exercise of dilutive stock
    options outstanding during the period, based on
    average market prices                                             102           77

4.  Shares issuable upon exercise of dilutive stock
    options outstanding during the period, based on
    higher of average or period-end market prices                     187           98

5.  Average number of capital and capital equivalent
    shares outstanding (2 + 3)                                     34,970       32,896

6.  Average number of capital shares outstanding,
    assuming full dilution (2 + 4)                                 35,055       32,917

7.  Net income per capital and capital equivalent share
    (1 divided by 5)                                           $     0.20   $     0.17
                                                               ==========   ==========
8.  Net income per capital share assuming full dilution
    (1 divided by 6)                                           $     0.20   $     0.17
                                                               ==========   ==========
</TABLE>
```

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 180 (Tuesday, September 16, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 53469]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-21485]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-58445A; File No. SR-BSE-2008-43]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Boston Stock Exchange, Inc.; 
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change 
Regarding Transfer of Ownership of MX US 2, Inc.; Correction

September 10, 2008.
    In FR Doc. No. E8-20869, for Tuesday, September 9, 2008, beginning 
on page 52434, make the following correction. On page 52436, first 
column, the first full paragraph is revised to read as follows:
    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally may 
not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing.\17\ 
However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) permits the Commission to designate a 
shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of 
investors and the public interest.\18\ The Exchange has requested that 
the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay.\19\ The Commission 
believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the 
protection of investors and the public interest because BSE has 
represented that the Instruments of Accession will be executed on 
August 29, 2008, and there is no reason to delay implementation of the 
changes to the BOX LLC Agreement pursuant to the Instruments of 
Accession. For these reasons, the Commission designates the proposal to 
be operative upon filing with the Commission.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). In addition, Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) requires the self-regulatory organization to give the 
Commission notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, 
along with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, 
at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the 
proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the 
Commission. The Commission has determined to waive the five-day 
prefiling period in this case.
    \18\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \19\ See E-mail from Lisa J. Fall, General Counsel and Corporate 
Secretary, BOX, to Molly Kim, Special Counsel, Division of Trading 
and Markets, Commission, on August 29, 2008.
    \20\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay, 
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on 
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, 
pursuant to delegated authority.
Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-21485 Filed 9-15-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P
```
Exhibit 10.13


 





 


 


AMENDEMENT ONE TO SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT


 


This
Amendment One ("Amendment One") to the Software Development Agreement is
made as of this 12th day of September, 2011, by and between Realtime Edge Software Inc. ("Realtime")
and Club Service, Inc. as successor-in-interest to Centaurus Games, LLC ("CSI").


 


WHEREAS,
the Parties hereto entered into a Software Development Agreement dated as of September 16, 2008 (the "Agreement");
and


 


WHEREAS,
the Parties hereto desire to amend the "Termination and Other Remedies" section (Section 8) of the Agreement.


 


NOW
THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which
is hereby acknowledged, the Parties hereby agree as follows:


 


1.               
Capitalized Terms. Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings set forth in the Agreement.


 


2.               
Termination by CSL Section 8.2 of the Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:


 


"This
Agreement may be terminated by convenience by CSI upon six (6) months written notice to Realtime for any reason or no reason."


 


3.               
Counterparts. This Amendment One may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original.
This Amendment One may be executed by facsimile signature.


 


4.               
No Other Changes. Except as otherwise set forth herein, no other changes, amendments or modifications are made to
the Agreement.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have duly executed this Amendment One as of the date and year first written
above.


 


 


	Realtime Edge Software Inc. (“Realtime”)	 	Club Services, Inc. (“CSI”)
	 	 	 
	By: /s/ Uri Kozai                        	 	By: /s/ Adam Pliska                  
	Name: Uri Kozai	 	Name: Adam Pliska
	Its: President	 	Its: President
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Civil No. 06-cv-13-PB

Amy McPherson, et al.

ORDER STRIKING DOCUMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LOCAL RULE 5.2

DOCUMENT/FILER: #13, Delilah Property Services, Inc. Motion to Extend Time to May

20, 2006 to Answer, filed by Amy McPherson

DATE FILED: March 27, 2006

The document above fails to comply with: 

LR 83.6(c) Corporation or unincorporated association may not appear in any

action or proceeding pro se

It is herewith ordered that the document is stricken, returned herewith to the

submitting party. 

SO ORDERED.

March , 2005 /s/ Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

District Judge

cc: Amy McPherson, Pro Se

John Kiernan, Esq. 

Paul Clifford, Esq. 

John Farley, Esq.

Case 1:06-cv-00013-PB Document 14 Filed 03/28/06 Page 1 of 1
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In re: SCOTT R. SMITH,

 Debtor.

SCOTT R. SMITH,

 Appellant,

 v.

ENTREPRENEUR MEDIA, INC.,

 Appellee.

No. 10-60009

BAP No. 09-1117

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the Ninth Circuit

Bankruptcy Appellate Panel

Markell, Montali, and Jury, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding

Submitted December 19, 2011** 

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

FILED

JAN 10 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 10-60009

Scott R. Smith, a Chapter 7 debtor, appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy

Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”) judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s judgment

determining that Smith’s debt to Entrepreneur Media, Inc. (“EMI”) is

nondischargeable in bankruptcy under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6). We have jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo the bankruptcy court’s conclusions

of law and for clear error its findings of fact. Petralia v. Jercich (In re Jercich),

238 F.3d 1202, 1204-05 (9th Cir. 2001). We affirm. 

The bankruptcy court properly determined that the debt in question resulted

from a willful and malicious injury and therefore was not subject to discharge

under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6). See Papadakis v. Zelis (In re Zelis), 66 F.3d 205,

208-09 (9th Cir. 1995) (setting forth elements of § 523(a)(6), and affirming

bankruptcy court’s determination that debtor’s conduct resulting in state court’s

award of sanctions was willful and malicious and therefore sanctions were

nondischargeable). Contrary to Smith’s contentions, the bankruptcy court did not

err in giving preclusive effect to the district court’s decision determining that

Smith infringed on EMI’s trademark and awarding EMI attorney’s fees. See Clark

v. Bear Stearns & Co., 966 F.2d 1318, 1320 (9th Cir. 1992) (setting forth elements

of issue preclusion under federal law); see also Earthquake Sound Corp. v. Bumper

Indus., 352 F.3d 1210, 1216 (9th Cir. 2003) (court may award attorney’s fees only
3 10-60009

in exceptional trademark cases where defendant acted maliciously, fraudulently,

deliberately, or willfully). 

We do not consider Smith’s contentions concerning the bankruptcy court’s

failure to sanction EMI sua sponte because Smith lacks standing, as he was not

“directly and adversely affected pecuniarily” by the decision and hence does not

qualify as a “person aggrieved.” Duckor Spradling & Metzger v. Baum Trust (In

re P.R.T.C., Inc.), 177 F.3d 774, 777 (9th Cir. 1999) (discussing additional

prudential standing requirement in bankruptcy cases); see also Fed. R. Bankr. P.

9011(c)(2) (providing for payment of sanctions to party only on party’s motion).

Smith’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive. 

AFFIRMED.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 06-cr-18-02-PB

Avery Blodgett, et al.

O R D E R

The defendant, through counsel, has moved to continue the

September 6, 2006 trial in the above case, citing the need for

additional time to review additional discovery not yet produced

by the government and prepare a defense. The government does not

object to a continuance of the trial date.

Accordingly, for the above reasons and to allow the parties

additional time to properly prepare for trial, the court will

continue the trial from September 6, 2006 to December 5, 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 

Case 1:06-cr-00018-PB Document 40 Filed 08/11/06 Page 1 of 2
2

best interests of the public and the defendants in a speedy

trial.

The August 29, 2006 final pretrial conference is continued

to November 28, 2006 at 4:30 p.m.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

August 11, 2006

cc: William Christie, Esq.

Richard Foley, Esq.

Donald Feith, AUSA 

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:06-cr-00018-PB Document 40 Filed 08/11/06 Page 2 of 2
TYRONE D. BLACKSHEAR

,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Respondent.

___________________________/ IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 14

- 5378

Opinion filed March 4, 2015.

Petition Alleging Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel

– Original

Jurisdiction

.

Tyrone D. Blackshear, pro se

, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Giselle D. Lylen, Assistant Attorney

General, Tallahassee , for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel is DENIED

on the merits

.

CLARK, ROWE, and MAKAR, JJ., CONCUR.