alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit
      10.13






Robert
        S. Shapard
 Employment
        Arrangements
 
 
 Since
        April 17, 2007, TXU Electric Delivery Company (the “Company”) has employed
        Robert S. Shapard as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer on an at-will employee
        basis. The Company pays Mr. Shapard an annual base salary equal to $500,000,
        and
        his target bonus under the TXU Corp. Executive Annual Incentive Plan has
        been
        set at 60% of his annual base salary. Also, Mr. Shapard is eligible to
        participate in all compensation and benefit plans of the Company’s parent, TXU
        Corp., in which similarly situated executives are eligible to participate,
        which
        currently include the TXU Corp. Executive Annual Incentive Plan, the TXU
        Corp.
        2005 Omnibus Incentive Plan, the TXU Corp. Salary Deferral Plan, the TXU
        Executive Financial Advisement Program, the Executive Physical Examination
        Program, the TXU Second Supplemental Retirement Plan, the TXU Corp. Executive
        Change in Control Policy and the TXU Corp. 2005 Executive Severance Plan.
        If Mr.
        Shapard resigns on or before September 30, 2007, he is entitled to 6 months’
base salary, payable in accordance with the Company’s normal payroll practices,
        and retention of 10,000 performance unit awards previously granted pursuant
        to
        the 2005 Omnibus Incentive Plan.
Exhibit 32.2


                    Certification of Chief Financial Officer
            Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

C.W. Gilluly, Chief Financial Officer of AMASYS Corporation (the "Company")
certifies in his capacity as an officer of the Company that he has reviewed the
Report of the Company on Form 10-QSB for quarter ended December 31, 2004 and
that to the best of his or her knowledge:

     1.   the report fully complies with the  requirements of Sections 13(a) and
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

The purpose of this statement is solely to comply with Title 18, Chapter 63,
Section 1350 of the United States code, as amended by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or it staff upon request.



February 14, 2005                                    /s/ C.W. Gilluly, Ed.D.
                                                     ---------------------------
                                                     C.W. Gilluly, Ed.D.
                                                     Principal Finance Officer
                                                     (Chief Financial Officer)
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-19-00102-CV

__________________

DARREN CEASAR, Appellant

V.

904 HOTEL OPERATING LLC D/B/A MCM ELEGANTE HOTEL, 

Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 136th District Court

Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Cause No. D-200,813-A 

__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In February 2021, Darren Ceasar and 904 Hotel Operating LLC d/b/a MCM 

Elegante Hotel, who are the parties to the appeal, filed a joint motion in which they

ask this Court to dismiss the appeal. The parties filed the joint motion before the 

Court issued an opinion. The motion complies with the requirements in Rule 42.1 of 

the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, which allows the appellate court to dismiss 
2

the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1. Because there are no other parties to the appeal, 

we grant the joint motion and dismiss the appeal. 

APPEAL DISMISSED.

 PER CURIAM

 

Submitted on January 25, 2021

Opinion Delivered March 18, 2021

Before Golemon, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1745 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1745

To provide that all American citizens living abroad shall (for purposes 
 of the apportionment of Representatives in Congress among the several 
States and for other purposes) be included in future decennial censuses 
                 of population, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 8, 2001

  Mr. Gilman introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
Committee on Government Reform, and in addition to the Committee on the 
 Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, 
 in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the 
                jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide that all American citizens living abroad shall (for purposes 
 of the apportionment of Representatives in Congress among the several 
States and for other purposes) be included in future decennial censuses 
                 of population, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Full Equality for Americans Abroad 
Act''.

SEC. 2. INCLUSION OF AMERICAN CITIZENS LIVING ABROAD IN FUTURE 
              DECENNIAL CENSUSES.

    The Secretary of Commerce shall ensure that, in each decennial 
census of population taken after the date of the enactment of this Act 
under title 13, United States Code, all American citizens living abroad 
shall be included for purposes of the tabulations required for the 
apportionment of Representatives in Congress among the several States, 
and for other purposes.

SEC. 3. REPORT ON RELATED ISSUES.

    (a) In General.--There is hereby enacted into law the provision 
described in subsection (b) (relating to the report to be submitted by 
the Secretary of Commerce to the Congress by no later than September 
30, 2001).
    (b) Description.--The provision described in this subsection is the 
paragraph beginning on page 256 and ending on page 257 of the 
explanatory language on H.R. 5548 (as introduced on October 25, 2000), 
as included in the joint explanatory statement of the committee of 
conference accompanying the conference report on H.R. 4942 (House 
Report Numbered 106-1005, 106th Congress, 2d Session, October 26, 2000, 
256-257), but deeming such paragraph not to include ``and their 
dependents''.
                                 <all>
```
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 154

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase to 100 percent

the amount of the deduction for the health insurance costs of selfemployed individuals.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 3, 2001

Mr. POMEROY (for himself and Mr. MCHUGH) introduced the following bill;

which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase

to 100 percent the amount of the deduction for the

health insurance costs of self-employed individuals.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Self-Employed Health

5 Affordability Act of 2001’’.
2

•HR 154 IH

1 SEC. 2. DEDUCTION FOR 100 PERCENT OF HEALTH INSUR2 ANCE COSTS OF SELF-EMPLOYED INDIVID3 UALS.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (1) of section 162(l)

5 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read

6 as follows:

7 ‘‘(1) ALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION.—In the case

8 of an individual who is an employee within the

9 meaning of section 401(c)(1), there shall be allowed

10 as a deduction under this section an amount equal

11 to 100 percent of the amount paid during the tax12 able year for insurance which constitutes medical

13 care for the taxpayer, his spouse, and dependents.’’

14 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

15 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after

16 December 31, 2000.

Æ
1. Gold held ‘‘under earmark’’ at Federal Reserve Banks for foreign and international

accounts is not included in the gold stock of the United States; see table 3.13, line 3. Gold

stock is valued at $42.22 per fine troy ounce.

2. Special drawing rights (SDRs) are valued according to a technique adopted by the

International Monetary Fund (IMF) in July 1974. Values are based on a weighted average of

exchange rates for the currencies of member countries. From July 1974 through December

1980, sixteen currencies were used; since January 1981, five currencies have been used. U.S.

SDR holdings and reserve positions in the IMF also have been valued on this basis since July

1974.

3. Includes allocations of SDRs by the International Monetary Fund on Jan. 1 of the year

indicated, as follows: 1970—$867 million; 1971—$717 million; 1972—$710 million; 1979—

$1,139 million; 1980—$1,152 million; 1981—$1,093 million; plus net transactions in SDRs.

4. Valued at current market exchange rates.

3.13 FOREIGN OFFICIAL ASSETS HELD AT FEDERAL RESERVE BANKS1

Millions of dollars, end of period

Asset 1996 1997 1998

1999

Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug.p

1 Deposits .............................. 167 457 167 233 200 166 260 157 409 257 166

Held in custody

2 U.S. Treasury securities2 ................. 638,049 620,885 607,574 612,670 615,139 610,649 606,662 606,579 611,372 619,004 626,669

3 Earmarked gold3 ........................ 11,197 10,763 10,343 10,343 10,347 10,347 10,340 10,340 10,329 10,329 10,271

1. Excludes deposits and U.S. Treasury securities held for international and regional

organizations.

2. Marketable U.S. Treasury bills, notes, and bonds and nonmarketable U.S. Treasury

securities, in each case measured at face (not market) value.

3. Held in foreign and international accounts and valued at $42.22 per fine troy ounce; not

included in the gold stock of the United States.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 186 (Wednesday, September 24, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55068-55069]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-22270]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER08-1183-001]


Portland General Electric Company; Notice of Filing

September 17, 2008.
    Take notice that on September 12, 2008, Portland General Electric 
Company filed proposed revisions to Schedule 4 of their Open Access 
Transmission Tariff, FERC Electric Tariff, Third Revised Volume 8, 
pursuant to the Commission's August 29, 2008 Order, 124 FERC ] 61,208, 
section 205 of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824d, and Part 35 of 
the Commission's regulations, 18 CFR Part 35.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. 
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of 
that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission,

[[Page 55069]]

888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c68083948589a8aaafa8a395b3b6b6a9b4b286a0a3b4a5e8a1a9b0"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f4b2b1a6b7bb9a989d9a91a78184849b8680b492918697da939b82">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on October 3, 2008.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-22270 Filed 9-23-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
,,,,,,,,,,,

5 Foreign currencies4 ..................... 38,294 30,809 36,001 32,182 30,941 30,406 31,535 30,014 30,429 31,037 30,130

1. Gold held ‘‘under earmark’’ at Federal Reserve Banks for foreign and international

accounts is not included in the gold stock of the United States; see table 3.13, line 3. Gold

stock is valued at $42.22 per fine troy ounce.

2. Special drawing rights (SDRs) are valued according to a technique adopted by the

International Monetary Fund (IMF) in July 1974. Values are based on a weighted average of

exchange rates for the currencies of member countries. From July 1974 through December

1980, sixteen currencies were used; since January 1981, five currencies have been used. U.S.

SDR holdings and reserve positions in the IMF also have been valued on this basis since July

1974.

3. Includes allocations of SDRs by the International Monetary Fund on Jan. 1 of the year

indicated, as follows: 1970—$867 million; 1971—$717 million; 1972—$710 million; 1979—

$1,139 million; 1980—$1,152 million; 1981—$1,093 million; plus net transactions in SDRs.

4. Valued at current market exchange rates.

3.13 FOREIGN OFFICIAL ASSETS HELD AT FEDERAL RESERVE BANKS1

Millions of dollars, end of period

Asset 1996 1997 1998

1999 2000

Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June Julyp

1 Deposits .............................. 167 457 167 71 82 87 125 142 110 104 76

Held in custody

2 U.S. Treasury securities2 ................. 638,049 620,885 607,574 632,482 627,326 631,421 641,830 632,216 623,553 627,081 624,177

3 Earmarked gold3 ........................ 11,197 10,763 10,343 9,933 9,866 9,771 9,711 9,711 9,711 9,688 9,688

1. Excludes deposits and U.S. Treasury securities held for international and regional

organizations.

2. Marketable U.S. Treasury bills, notes, and bonds and nonmarketable U.S. Treasury

securities, in each case measured at face (not market) value.

3. Held in foreign and international accounts and valued at $42.22 per fine troy ounce; not

included in the gold stock of the United States.
<TABLE> <S> <C>
             
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM EAGLE
WIRELESS INTERNATIONAL, INC.'S BALANCE SHEET AND STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE
PERIOD ENDED NOVEMBER 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND ACCOMPANYING NOTES. 
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>        AUG-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>             NOV-30-1998
<CASH>                           539
<SECURITIES>                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                  6,084
<ALLOWANCES>                       0
<INVENTORY>                    1,305
<CURRENT-ASSETS>               7,943
<PP&E>                           957
<DEPRECIATION>                   251
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                 8,660
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>          1,026
<BONDS>                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>              0
<PREFERRED>                        0
<COMMON>                          12
<OTHER-SE>                     7,600
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>   8,660
<SALES>                          931
<TOTAL-REVENUES>               1,108
<CGS>                            420
<TOTAL-COSTS>                    420
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                 535
<LOSS-PROVISION>                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 1
<INCOME-PRETAX>                  152
<INCOME-TAX>                      56
<INCOME-CONTINUING>               96
<DISCONTINUED>                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                    0
<CHANGES>                          0
<NET-INCOME>                      96
<EPS-PRIMARY>                   0.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                   0.01
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIR E

CIVIL ACTION NO. :

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF THE UNITED STATE S

DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIR E

PETITION OF EULAH MCGRATH LLC FOR EXONERATION FROM, OR

LIMITATION OF, LIABILITY

ORDER TO APPRAISE

Upon consideration of the prayer in the Petition in the above entitled cause that due

appraisal be made of the amount of value of the petitioner's interest, in the F/V EULAH

MCGRATH, and its pending freight, if any, as of the time of the casualty as set forth in said

Petition it is now, to wit :

ORDERED AND DECREED that David DuBois of Marine Safety Consultants, 26 Water

Street, Fairhaven, MA, be and is hereby appointed Appraiser to ascertain said amount of value of

the petitioner's interest and report thereon to this Court .

By the Court,

Case 1:06-cv-00213-JM Document 5 Filed 06/14/2006 Page 1 of 1
#### FAULK v. WELLER K-F CARS, Inc.

Supreme Court of Florida. Division A.

Feb. 23, 1954.

J. Russell Hornsby, Orlando, for appellant.

Giles, Hedrick & Robinson, Orlando, for appellee.

MATHEWS, Justice.

The appellant purchased a used automobile from the appellee. She went into the *579appellee’s place- of business with some friend and signed a written, contract, reading in part as follows:

> “Please enter my order for one used car — as is: * * *

> “No .Saleman’s verbal agreement is binding on the Company; all terms and conditions of this sale are expressed in this agreement; any promises or understandings not herein specified in writing, are hereby expressly waived. * * **»*

On the same day appellant was given an Approved Used Car Warranty which warranted the condition of'the car for thirty days and provided that any defects in the car would be remedied at a cost of only 50% of both parts and labor, and further provided in Paragraph 5 as follows:

> “No other warranties, representations, or agreements, expressed or implied, have been made to the buyer.”

About a month after the purchase of the used car, it was returned to the appellee for repairs., which repairs were made at a cost of $456.99. .Appellant refused to pay the bill and brought this suit, claiming that the appellee had fraudulently misrepresented the used car to her. The appellee filed a counterclaim for one-half the amount of the repair bill. The trial Judge directed a verdict against the appellant as to her complaint for fraud and the jury returned a verdict against her on the counterclaim for ori,e-half of the repair bill.’ Judgment was entered upon this verdict and the appellant prosecutes this appeal.'

The allegations and the proof with - reference to fraudulent misrepresentations were wholly insufficient. Nothing new. would be presented to -the jurisprudence of-the State by a discussion of the requirements to allege and prove fraudulent misrepresentations. The fact that there was a written guarantee and the rights of the parties were definitely defined negatives the idea of fraudulent misrepresentations and pre-supposes that something might be »vrong with the condition of the used automobile which would require repairs, which it might be necessary to remedy, with • a • portion of the cost thereof to be borne by each of the parties.

It has not been made to appear that any reversible error was committed by the trial Court.

Affirmed'.

ROBERTS, C. J., and TERRELL and SEBRING, JJ., concur.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-20-00384-CV

Michael V. Wright and Phyllis F. Wright, Appellants

v.

State Farm Lloyds, Appellee

FROM THE 368TH DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY 

NO. 15-1042-C368, THE HONORABLE RICK J. KENNON, JUDGE PRESIDING

O R D E R

PER CURIAM

Appellants’ brief on appeal was originally due October 30, 2020. On counsel’s 

motions, the time for filing was extended to January 22, 2021. Counsel has now filed a fourth

motion, requesting that the Court extend the time for filing appellants’ brief to February 22. We 

grant the motion for extension of time and order appellants to file a brief no later than 

February 22, 2021. No further extension of time will be granted and failure to comply with this 

order may result in dismissal of this appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a).

It is ordered on February 3, 2021.

Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Baker and Smith
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001023334
<NAME> MEGO MORTGAGE CORP
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1996
<CASH>                                          28,659
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,765
<ALLOWANCES>                                       227
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                           2,096
<DEPRECIATION>                                     355
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  94,748
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                          1,662
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           123
<OTHER-SE>                                      40,715
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    94,748
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                10,359
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 6,347
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,711
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  47
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,012
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,533
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,479
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,479
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.24
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.24
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 07-mj-49-01

Jerry A. Shanahan

 

O R D E R

I hereby recuse myself due to the appearance of McLane, Graf, Raulerson &

Middleton, which was my previous law firm. 

 

SO ORDERED.

October 1, 2007 _________________________________

James R. Muirhead

U.S. Magistrate Judge

 cc: Peter Andersen, Esq.

 Andrew Good, Esq.

 Philip G. Cormier, Esq.

 William Morse, AUSA

 US Marshal

 US Probation

 

Case 1:07-cr-00223-SM Document 5 Filed 10/01/07 Page 1 of 1