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



Exhibit 10.36
 SUPPLEMENTAL EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT PLAN TRUST
 ,
    ,
    Establishment Of Trust.




---



##### 



2




---



##### 



Payments to Plan Participants and Their Beneficiaries.
    Trustee Responsibility Regarding Payments to Trust Beneficiary When
Company Is Insolvent.
   3




---



##### 



4




---



##### 



Payments to Company.
  Investment Authority.
  Disposition of Income.
  Accountinq by Trustee.
  5




---



##### 



Responsibility of Trustee.
       6




---



##### 



Compensation and Expenses of Trustee.
  Resignation and Removal of Trustee.
       7




---



##### 



Appointment of Successor.
  Amendment or Termination.
     Miscellaneous.
   8




---



##### 



Definitions.
         9




---



##### 



10




---



##### 



Effective Date.
   COMPANY:
LAFARGE CORPORATIONDate: December 16, 1996
    By:
    /s/ Larry J. WaisanenTitle: Senior Vice President andChief Financial Officer TRUSTEE:
WACHOVIA BANK OF NORTH 
CAROLINA, NA.Date: December 30, 1996
    By:
    Beverly H. WardTitle: Senior Vice President 11
Exhibit 32.2



Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Western Pennsylvania Adventure Capital Fund, LLC on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Alvin J. Catz, Chief Financial Officer of Western Pennsylvania Adventure Capital Fund, LLC certify to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. (S) 1350, as adopted
pursuant to (S) 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 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 Western Pennsylvania Adventure Capital Fund,
LLC.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                               
|-----------------------------------------------
|/s/ Alvin J. Catz                              
|Alvin J. Catz                                  
|Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Director
|July 30, 2004                                  



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Western Pennsylvania Adventure Capital Fund, LLC and will retained by Western Pennsylvania Adventure Capital Fund, LLC and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
STYLE:

v. FILECOPY
RE: Case No. 15-0390 DATE: 5/22/2015 COA #: 12-14-00261-CV TC#: 2013C-1185 NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, L.L.C. KEN LANDERS AND CLARLINDA LANDERS 

### Todaythe Supreme Court of Texas receivedand filed amotion for extension of time to file petition 

### for reviewpursuant to Rule 53.7(f) in the above numbered and styled case.

MS. CATHY S. LUSK CLERK, TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS 1517 WEST FRONT, SUITE 3 TYLER, TX 75702
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Jimmy Wayne Carr, Appellant

No. 06

- 19

- 00127

- CR v.
The State of Texas, Appellee Appeal from the 6th District Court of Lamar County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 27809 ). Memorandum Opinion delivered by Justice Burgess, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice Stevens participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court

below

. We affirm the judgment of the trial court

. We not e that the appellant, Jimmy Wayne Carr, has adequately indicated his inability to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED JANUARY 9, 2020 BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
Chart 1

Number, Size, and Volume of Non-real-estate Farm Loans, 1980-2004

 -- Four-quarter moving average.

 Source. Survey of Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers.

1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004

1

2

3

4

5

Number of non-real-estate farm loans Millions, annual rate

1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004

10

20

30

40

50

Average size of non-real-estate farm loans Thousands of dollars

1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004

25

50

75

100

125

Volume of non-real-estate farm loans

3

Billions of dollars, annual rate
Chart 2

Maturity and Interest Rate of Non-real-estate Farm Loans, 1980-2004

 Note. Effective (compounded) annual interest rates are calculated from the stated rate and other

 terms of the loans and weighted by loan size.

 -- Four-quarter moving average.

 Source. Survey of Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers.

1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004

4

8

12

16

Average maturity of non-real-estate farm loans 20

Months

1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004

4

8

12

16

Average effective interest rate on non-real-estate farm loans 20

Percent

1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004

0

25

50

75

100 Share of farm loans with a floating interest rate

4

Percent
10

A.6. Share of Non-real-estate Bank Loans with a Floating Interest Rate Made to FarmersPercent

Size of loan Si

Purpose of loan (thousands of dollars) 

Other Farm 

current machinery 1 10 25 100

All Feeder Other operating and to to to and Sma

Period loans livestock livestock expenses1 equipment Other2 9 24 99 over mid-

1993...... 76.7 84.6 70.0 70.3 48.2 78.1 60.1 61.0 64.5 83.9 1994...... 75.1 82.9 74.3 72.3 51.6 75.7 58.6 59.8 70.4 80.2 1995...... 73.8 83.9 75.9 73.0 53.1 72.2 61.7 63.9 73.6 76.7 1996...... 63.1 58.1 71.2 67.3 32.9 61.4 60.6 61.5 69.1 62.2 1997...... 65.8 66.4 73.2 67.8 49.9 64.3 60.1 58.0 68.0 67.0 1998...... 54.4 55.0 59.4 68.5 46.7 42.0 57.6 54.8 62.7 51.1 1999...... 60.7 45.6 66.0 68.6 58.2 52.0 52.6 54.6 60.2 63.1 2000...... 66.9 57.3 60.7 67.0 62.2 76.7 53.4 54.6 61.8 74.5 2001...... 74.5 72.9 65.6 75.0 61.0 80.5 58.8 60.9 69.4 81.5 2002...... 75.1 64.6 65.4 75.8 60.9 84.1 67.8 64.5 68.4 81.2 2003...... 74.3 68.7 59.6 74.6 69.5 86.5 67.6 65.1 63.0 82.1 2004...... 74.3 67.2 47.5 73.4 71.2 91.3 65.8 63.7 63.1 79.9 2001: Q3... 76.5 72.5 72.6 75.5 54.9 86.9 58.0 63.5 70.7 86.6  Q4... 78.1 74.2 63.6 78.3 38.0 88.5 60.5 63.3 72.2 84.4 2002: Q1... 72.3 62.1 64.1 69.7 57.9 88.1 64.2 57.5 64.4 79.5  Q2... 75.1 56.2 72.9 74.5 52.8 89.1 69.6 67.6 72.9 79.3  Q3... 72.2 53.6 57.8 78.2 75.1 67.9 68.5 68.7 68.5 74.8  Q4... 81.4 78.1 65.4 81.8 37.9 93.5 67.6 62.8 68.0 92.2 2003: Q1... 74.7 64.0 79.5 75.4 61.7 86.0 68.2 67.5 63.7 80.8  Q2... 69.2 53.9 63.8 67.1 74.0 84.0 66.7 62.8 54.8 79.9  Q3... 78.2 74.9 41.0 81.0 78.2 88.8 69.7 64.4 73.6 84.1  Q4... 74.9 75.5 53.0 75.3 67.4 87.1 66.0 65.6 61.6 83.4 2004: Q1... 69.4 65.2 62.7 66.8 55.1 86.3 64.5 66.2 61.9 72.3  Q2... 80.5 79.6 52.8 77.7 72.5 94.5 68.5 66.1 67.6 88.9  Q3... 74.5 67.5 48.7 71.0 68.8 92.1 60.5 60.1 60.9 82.0  Q4... 74.1 64.4 34.6 79.7 86.9 91.5 70.1 61.7 61.7 79.2 2005: Q1... 72.7 61.2 73.9 73.5 51.6 83.2 66.7 59.1 64.2 78.1  Note. Data are estimates from the Federal Reserve System’s Survey of the Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers. Quarterly estimates annual rate and are based on loans made during the first full week of the second month of the quarter. 1. Loans used primarily to finance such items as current crop production expenses and the care and feeding of livestock (including p 2. Typically loans for which the lender does not know the purpose. 3. Portfolios with $25 million or less in farm loans. 4. Portfolios with more than $25 million in farm loans.
#### O. E. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DAVE LUMBER COMPANY et al., Defendants-Appellants. *

No. 3751.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit, Second Division.

Nov. 18, 1931.

W. H. Scheen, of Shreveport, Boone & Boone, Ponder & Ponder, all of Many, for appellants.

R. A. Eraser, of Many, for appellee.

DREW, J.

This case is a companion case to No. 3752, on the docket of this court, entitled J. H. McNeely v. Dave Lumber Company et *al., 137*So. 607, decided this day. The two cases were consolidated for trial in this court. Although they were tried separately in the lower court, the evidence adduced in No. 3752 was by agreement used in this case. The pleadings raised the same issues, the same exceptions were filed, and the same ruling made by the lower court. The only difference in the two cases is that there are different plaintiffs and a difference in the amounts sued for. The account sued on is admitted to be correct, therefore, for the reasons assigned in No. 3752, on the docket of this court.

The judgment of the lower court is affirmed, with costs.
SCWC-16-0000532 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I

RICHARD RAPOZO, Petitioner/Petitioner-Appellant,

vs. STATE OF HAWAI # I, Respondent/Respondent-Appellee.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (CAAP-16-0000532; CASE NO. 1PR141000016) ORDER DISMISSING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Wilson, and Eddins, JJ.)

It appearing that the judgment on appeal in the abovereferenced matter not having been filed by the Intermediate Court of Appeals at the time the application for writ of certiorari was filed, see Hawai # i Revised Statutes § 602-59(a) (2017)); see also Hawai # i Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 36(b)(1) (2016),

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner/PetitionerAppellant’s application for writ of certiorari, filed March 25, 2021, is dismissed without prejudice to re-filing the application pursuant to HRAP Rule 40.1(a) (2017) (“The application shall be filed within thirty days after the filing of the intermediate Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-16-0000532 30-MAR-2021 01:12 PM Dkt. 3 ODSACcourt of appeals’ judgment on appeal or dismissal order, unless

the time for filing the application is extended in accordance with this rule.”).

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, March 30, 2021. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Michael D. Wilson /s/ Todd W. Eddins

2
174 La. 60

#### VACUUM OIL CO. v. COCKRELL.

No. 30911.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 1, 1932.

Herold, Cousin & Herold, of Shreveport, for appellant.

W. A. Vinson, of Houston, Tex., and Cline, Plauehe & Thompson, of Lake Charles, for appellee.

OVERTON, J.

This is an appeal taken by defendant from a judgment ordering him to execute in favor of plaintiff a written assignment conveying to it certain mineral leases, and to execute in plaintiff’s favor and deliver to it certain mineral leases on other lands.

During the argument of the ease, counsel for plaintiff said that the issues therein had become moot. Counsel for the defendant was unable, at that time, to confirm this statement. Acting under a request made by the court that counsel for defendant place themselves in a position to affirm or deny the correctness of the conclusion drawn by counsel for plaintiff, they, after investigating, state, upon information furnished them by their client, that:

“Under the written contract between the parties, the Vacuum Oil Company had the right to surrender the leases to Cockrell after the performance of its obligation. Subsequent to the taking of the appeal in this case, the Vacuum Oil Company tendered the leases back to Cockrell. Cockrell refused the tender for the reason that, as he contended, the Vacuum Oil Compaliy was in default in respect of the absolute obligation undertaken by it to drill a deep well pursuant to the stipulation contained in the Cyr lease and in the Kyle Lumber Company lease.

“Counsel are informed that the Vacuum Oil Company nevertheless executed acts of retrocession of these leases to Cockrell and ■caused them to be recorded in the records of St. Mary parish, but that Cockrell himself refused to make himself a party to these ret-rocessions.

“Counsel is also informed and so. gives the court to understand that , there has been no agreement between the parties with respect to the Cognata and Palterman leases, the two which form the subject matter of this suit.”

The position of defendant is not that the case has become moot, but that plaintiff has abandoned its demands, and that the proper thing to do is not to dismiss the appeal, but to dismiss the suit.

The facts out of which the present question grows have come into existence since the appeal was taken. They are not before us in such form and manner as to admit of a final disposition of the case. The contention of the parties to the suit, however, seems to be sufficiently grave as to call for an order remanding the case, coupled with one setting aside the judgment appealed from, with appropriate instructions.

The judgment appealed from is set aside, and this ease is remanded to the lower court for the purpose of determining, after a hearing, whether the case has become a moot one, or whether plaintiff has abandoned its demands, and to render such judgment as the facts and the law, touching the question, now presented, may justify, including the dismissal of the suit, or the reinstatement of the judgment appealed from.
16

A.11. Characteristics of Bank Loans to Farmers -- All Banks, by Risk Rating, November 6-10, 2006Percent except as notedLoan characteristic All Minimal Low Moderate Acceptable Special Not ratVolume of loans (thousands of dollars) 1,375,464 95,436 234,678 526,370 340,823 38,640 20,7Number of loans 23,683 2,175 3,966 9,263 4,157 717 5Weighted average maturity (months)1 20.81 13.55 20.06 19.71 19.30 14.46 62.

Weighted average repricing interval (months)2 8.75 6.00 14.61 6.81 5.46 4.48 25.

Weighted average risk rating3 2.99 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 n

Weighted average interest rate4 8.37 8.46 8.72 8.05 8.44 8.86 9. Standard error5 .27 .24 .10 .39 .25 .33 .

 Interquartile range6 75th percentile 9.05 9.16 9.19 8.87 9.00 9.31 9.7 25th percentile 7.71 7.35 8.06 7.19 7.57 8.04 8. Purpose of loan Feeder livestock 8.54 8.63 8.87 8.22 8.08 10.09 9.4 Other livestock 8.55 8.12 8.94 8.92 8.15 8.00 9.0 Other current operating expenses7 8.62 8.40 8.88 8.53 8.45 9.20 9.2

 Farm machinery and equipment 8.95 9.18 7.56 8.63 9.30 8.40 8. Farm real estate 8.34 7.90 8.17 8.47 8.39 8.61 9. Other8 7.54 8.68 8.13 6.86 8.03 8.88 9.

Share of total loan volume Features of loan Floating rates 70.54 39.62 50.96 73.42 93.74 83.21 55.9 Under commitment 78.34 74.13 70.86 82.37 87.83 92.75 48.7 Callable 19.24 39.33 22.73 16.85 12.16 2.87 7.9 Subject to prepayment penalty 3.21 .25 9.26 2.88 1.56 1.88 n Purpose of loan Feeder livestock 14.88 36.84 27.58 11.17 5.47 5.73 4.5 Other livestock 9.23 9.89 11.16 5.92 12.58 22.76 9. Other current operating expenses7 36.90 45.31 41.81 37.88 31.80 37.34 24.7 Farm machinery and equipment 8.17 2.99 2.83 7.15 18.13 1.14 1.9 Farm real estate 9.32 4.11 10.80 9.80 7.54 1.57 22.4 Other8 21.50 .86 5.82 28.07 24.47 31.45 36.7

 Type of collateral Farm real estate 15.35 7.86 20.22 15.43 10.20 2.48 52. Other 80.25 85.84 75.95 78.95 86.57 97.26 47. For explanation of footnotes, see table A.8. n.a. Not available.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

July 31, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

130977 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 130977 

 COA: 267118 

Wayne CC: 01-013955-01

ERIC LANCE WILSON, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 6, 2006 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

s0724 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

July 31, 2006 

 Clerk
##### 



Exhibit 23

Consent of Independent Auditors

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration
Statements of Lafarge North America Inc. (formerly Lafarge Corporation):

|       |  |                                                                                                                                                                       
|------ |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(i)    |  | Registration Statement on Form S-8, File No. 2-92414,                                                                                                                 
|      
|(ii)   |  | Registration Statement on Form S-8, File No. 33-9813,                                                                                                                 
|      
|(iii)  |  | Registration Statement on Form S-8, File No. 33-20865,                                                                                                                
|      
|(iv)   |  | Registration Statement on Form S-3, File No. 33-32644 (which also
constitutes Post-Effective Amendment No. 6 to Registration Statement on
Form S-1, File No. 2-82548),
|      
|(v)    |  | Registration Statement on Form S-8, File No. 33-32645,                                                                                                                
|      
|(vi)   |  | Registration Statement on Form S-3, File No. 33-46093 (which also
constitutes Post-Effective Amendment No. 7 of Registration Statement on
Form S-1, File No. 2-82548),
|      
|(vii)  |  | Registration Statement on Form S-8, File No. 33-51873,                                                                                                                
|      
|(viii) |  | Registration Statement on Form S-8, File No. 333-65897,                                                                                                               
|      
|(ix)   |  | Registration Statement on Form S-3, File No. 333-57333, and                                                                                                           
|      
|(x)    |  | Registration Statement on Form S-8, File No. 333-110656.                                                                                                              

of our report dated January 21, 2004, with respect to the consolidated
financial statements and schedule of Lafarge North America Inc. included in
this Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003.

|                          |  |                      
|------------------------- |  | ---------------------
|                          |  | /s/ Ernst & Young LLP
|                         
|McLean, VA
March 11, 2004 |  |
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 06-cr-190-PB

Carlos Perez

O R D E R

The defendant, through counsel, has moved to continue the

March 6, 2007 trial in the above case, citing the need for

additional time to finalize a plea agreement. The government

does not object to a continuance of the trial date.

Accordingly, to allow the parties additional time to

finalize the plea agreement or properly prepare for trial, the

court will continue the trial from March 6, 2007 to April 3,

2007. 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-00190-PB Document 19 Filed 02/21/07 Page 1 of 2
2

The February 22, 2007 final pretrial conference is continued

until March 26, 2007 at 3:45 p.m.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

February 21, 2007

cc: Anthony K. Ortiz, Esq.

Robert Veiga, AUSA

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:06-cr-00190-PB Document 19 Filed 02/21/07 Page 2 of 2
##### 



Exhibit 12.1
 124




---



##### 



Exhibit 12.1
 First
Charter Corporation
Computation of Ratio of Earnings of Fixed Charges
 For the Calendar Year(Dollars in thousands)
    
    2007
    
    2006
    
    2005
    
    2004
    
    2003Computation of ratio of earnings to fixed charges:Income from continuing operations
before income tax expense
    
    $
    62,667
    
    
    $
    71,161
    
    
    $
    34,307
    
    
    $
    64,127
    
    
    $
    17,501Interest on nondeposit-interest bearing liabilities
    
    
    56,706
    
    
    
    48,771
    
    
    
    46,266
    
    
    
    28,943
    
    
    
    28,946Portion of rental expense deemed
representative of interest
    
    
    1,313
    
    
    
    1,725
    
    
    
    1,089
    
    
    
    880
    
    
    
    674Total income for computation excluding
interest on deposits
    
    
    120,686
    
    
    
    121,657
    
    
    
    81,662
    
    
    
    93,950
    
    
    
    47,121Interest on deposits
    
    
    106,300
    
    
    
    82,448
    
    
    
    53,456
    
    
    
    35,350
    
    
    
    41,544Total income for computation including
interest on deposits
    
    $
    226,986
    
    
    $
    204,105
    
    
    $
    135,118
    
    
    $
    129,300
    
    
    $
    88,665Fixed charges excluding interest on deposits
    
    $
    58,019
    
    
    $
    50,496
    
    
    $
    47,355
    
    
    $
    29,823
    
    
    $
    29,620Fixed charges including interest on deposits
    
    $
    164,319
    
    
    $
    132,944
    
    
    $
    100,811
    
    
    $
    65,173
    
    
    $
    71,164Ratio excluding interest on deposits
    
    
    2.08
    x
    
    
    2.41
    x
    
    
    1.72
    x
    
    
    3.15
    x
    
    
    1.59
    xRatio including interest on deposits
    
    
    1.38
    x
    
    
    1.54
    x
    
    
    1.34
    x
    
    
    1.98
    x
    
    
    1.25
    xComponents of fixed charges:Interest:Interest on deposits
    
    $
    106,300
    
    
    $
    82,448
    
    
    $
    53,456
    
    
    $
    35,350
    
    
    $
    41,544Interest on nondeposit interest-bearing liabilities
    
    
    56,706
    
    
    
    48,771
    
    
    
    46,266
    
    
    
    28,943
    
    
    
    28,946Total interest charges
    
    $
    163,006
    
    
    $
    131,219
    
    
    $
    99,722
    
    
    $
    64,293
    
    
    $
    70,490Rental expense:Rental expense
    
    $
    3,939
    
    
    $
    5,175
    
    
    $
    3,267
    
    
    $
    2,640
    
    
    $
    2,021Portion of rental expense deemed
representative of interest
    
    
    1,313
    
    
    
    1,725
    
    
    
    1,089
    
    
    
    880
    
    
    
    674
 125