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

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 06-cr-137-01-PB

Madeline Sanchez-Marrero

O R D E R

The defendant has moved to continue the October 3, 2006

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

complete 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 complete discovery and properly prepare for trial, the court

will continue the trial from October 3, 2006 to January 4, 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-00137-PB Document 6 Filed 09/21/06 Page 1 of 2
2

The September 25, 2006 final pretrial conference is

continued until December 19, 2006 at 3:45 p.m.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

September 21, 2006

cc: Ray Raimo, Esq.

Terry Ollila, AUSA

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:06-cr-00137-PB Document 6 Filed 09/21/06 Page 2 of 2
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1695

To amend section 211 of the Clean Air Act to prohibit the use of certain

fuel additives.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 3, 2001

Mr. POMBO (for himself, Mrs. BONO, Mr. HERGER, Mr. RADANOVICH, Mr.

CUNNINGHAM, Mr. HAYWORTH, Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California, Mr.

SCHAFFER, Mr. GIBBONS, Mr. DOOLITTLE, Mr. HUNTER, and Mr.

HOSTETTLER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Energy and Commerce

A BILL

To amend section 211 of the Clean Air Act to prohibit

the use of certain fuel additives.

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

3 SECTION 1. AMENDMENT OF SECTION 211.

4 Section 211(c) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C.

5 7545(c)) is amended as follows:

6 (1) By adding at the end of paragraph (1) the

7 following: ‘‘The Administrator shall amend the regu8 lations under this paragraph as promptly as prac9 ticable after the date of enactment of this sentence
2

•HR 1695 IH

1 to prohibit the use of methyl tertiary butyl ether

2 (MTBE) as a fuel additive.’’.

3 (2) By adding the following new subparagraph

4 at the end of paragraph (2):

5 ‘‘(D) The Administrator shall prohibit under para6 graph (1) any additive in gasoline registered under sub7 section (a) after the enactment of this subparagraph un8 less it has been determined (through scientific testing and

9 peer review) not to have any adverse effects on the pub10 lic.’’.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                       5
<LEGEND>
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                           0001023877
<NAME>                          Goung Hei Investment Co., Ltd.
<MULTIPLIER>                                                          1
<CURRENCY>                                                   US Dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                           DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                              JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                                MAR-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                                       1
<CASH>                                                                0
<SECURITIES>                                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                         0
<ALLOWANCES>                                                          0
<INVENTORY>                                                           0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                      0
<PP&E>                                                                0
<DEPRECIATION>                                                        0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                        0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                                 0
<BONDS>                                                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                                           0
<COMMON>                                                             17
<OTHER-SE>                                                          (17)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                          0
<SALES>                                                               0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                      0
<CGS>                                                                 0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                         0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                      0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                    0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                       0
<INCOME-TAX>                                                          0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                   0
<DISCONTINUED>                                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                       0
<CHANGES>                                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                                          0
<EPS-BASIC>                                                         0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                         0



</TABLE>
Schedule to Stock Option Agreement



 Exhibit 10.1 
  
 Schedule to Stock Option Agreement Under Huttig Building Products, Inc. 
 Amended and Restated 2001 Stock Incentive Plan 
  

								
	 Option Holder

	  	Number Of Shares

	  	Exercise Price

	  	Date of Grant


	 Michael A. Lupo
	  	400,000	  	$	2.30 per share	  	April 28, 2003
	 Michael A. Lupo
	  	100,000	  	$	7.23 per share	  	April 27, 2004
	 Carl A. Liliequist
	  	100,000	  	$	2.98 per share	  	August 5, 2003
	 Carl A. Liliequist
	  	25,000	  	$	7.23 per share	  	April 27, 2004
	 Thomas S. McHugh
	  	40,000	  	$	5.875 per share	  	January 29, 2002
	 Thomas S. McHugh
	  	10,000	  	$	7.23 per share	  	April 27, 2004
	 Nick H. Varsam
	  	34,000	  	$	5.875 per share	  	January 29, 2002
	 Nick H. Varsam
	  	10,000	  	$	7.23 per share	  	April 27, 2004
	 Jon P. Vrabely
	  	10,000	  	$	7.23 per share	  	April 27, 2004
	 Hank J. Krey
	  	25,000	  	$	2.98 per share	  	August 5, 2003
	 Hank J. Krey
	  	5,000	  	$	7.23 per share	  	April 27, 2004
	 Richard A. Baltz
	  	10,000	  	$	2.98 per share	  	August 5, 2003
	 Richard A. Baltz
	  	5,000	  	$	7.23 per share	  	April 27, 2004
	 Barry J. Kulpa
	  	55,000	  	$	5.875 per share	  	January 29, 2002
#### In re CARVER.

Supreme Court of Florida. Division A.

April 6, 1954.

Richard F.- Logan, Ellis & Logan, St. Petersburg, for petitioner.

*735Clair A. Davis, St. Petersburg, for defendant.

TERRELL, Justice.

This is a certified question under 30 F.S.A. Rule 38 of the Rules of this Court. We do not think it meets the requirement of Schwob Co. v. Florida Industrial Commission, 152 Fla. 203, 11 So.2d 782. It seeks an adjudication or restoration to sanity as provided in Section 394.22(4) (a, b), Florida Statutes 1953, F.S.A. a proceedings vested in the Circuit Court. The certificate is denied without prejudice to seek adjudication in'the Circuit Court as authorized in the cited and applicable statutes.

It is so ordered.

ROBERTS, C. J., and SEBRING and MATHEWS, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 21.1
                                                               Jurisdiction of
                                                                Incorporation
                                                               ---------------
First Tier Subsidiaries of Registrant:

Governors Group Advisors, Inc.                                  Delaware
Keystone Financial Bank, N.A.                                   United States
Keystone Financial Unlimited, Inc.                              Pennsylvania
Keystone CDC, Inc.                                              Pennsylvania
Keystone Financial Life Insurance Company                       Arizona
Keystone Financial Mid-Atlantic Funding Corporation             Pennsylvania
Keystone Investment Services, Inc.                              Delaware
Martindale Andres & Company                                     Pennsylvania
MMC&P Retirement Benefit Services, Inc.                         Pennsylvania

Second Tier Subsidiaries of Registrant:

Keystone Financial Mortgage Corporation                         Pennsylvania
Keystone Brokerage, Inc.                                        Pennsylvania
Keystone Financial Mortgage Holding Company, Inc.               Delaware
Keystone Financial Mortgage Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc.  Maryland
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-40176

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

DAVID REYNA-SALINAS,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:18-CR-1650-1

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent David ReynaSalinas has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance 

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 

F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Reyna-Salinas has not filed a response. We have 

reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected 

therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 1, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 19-40176 Document: 00515140581 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/01/2019
No. 19-40176

2

nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave 

to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities 

herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 19-40176 Document: 00515140581 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/01/2019
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-15-00062-CR

Daniel Eugene Anderson

v.

The State of Texas §

§

§

§

§ From the 432nd District Court

of Tarrant Coun ty (1331169D)

September 22, 2016

Opinion by Justice Dauphinot

(nfp)



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

there was no error in the tria l court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By _/s/ Lee Ann Daup hinot______

________ Justice Lee Ann Dauphinot
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 filing of  HomeLife  Inc.'s (the  "Company")  Quarterly
Report  on Form  10-QSB  for the  period  ending  November  30,  2004,  with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Marie
M. May,  the Chief  Financial  Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 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 the Company.


                                        / s / Marie M. May
                                        --------------------------
                                        Marie M. May
                                        Chief Financial Officer
Date:  January 14, 2005
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 Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K of CoJax Oil and Gas Corporation, a Virginia corporation (the “Company”), for the year ended December 31, 2020, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Wm. Barrett Wellman, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 the Company.  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 its staff upon request.  Date: May 27, 2022By/s/Wm. Barrett WellmanName:Wm. Barrett WellmanTitle:Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1


                                 ErgoBilt, Inc.
                         Earnings per Share Calculation
                            Six Months Ended 6/30/97



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                      1997             1996
                                                    26 WEEKS         26 WEEKS
                                                   ----------       ----------- 
<S>                                                <C>              <C>         
WEIGHTED AVERAGE SHARES AND EQUIVALENT
SHARES OUTSTANDING


           COMMON STOCK OUTSTANDING                 5,397,988         2,770,285
           COMMON STOCK EQUIVALENTS                    12,885                --

                                                   ----------       ----------- 
           SHARES OUTSTANDING                       5,410,873         2,770,285
                                                   ==========       =========== 

           NET PROFIT (LOSS)                       $1,104,496       $   (12,494)

           NET PROFIT (LOSS) PER SHARE             $     0.20       $     (0.00)
</TABLE>
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1659

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to clarify the amount of

the charitable deduction allowable for contributions of food inventory,

and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 1, 2001

Mr. HOUGHTON (for himself and Mr. HALL of Ohio) 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 clarify

the amount of the charitable deduction allowable for

contributions of food inventory, and for other purposes.

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 ‘‘Good Samaritan Tax

5 Act’’.

6 SEC. 2. CHARITABLE DEDUCTION FOR CONTRIBUTIONS OF

7 FOOD INVENTORY.

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (e) of section 170 of

9 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to certain
2

•HR 1659 IH

1 contributions of ordinary income and capital gain prop2 erty) is amended by adding at the end the following new

3 paragraph:

4 ‘‘(7) SPECIAL RULE FOR CONTRIBUTIONS OF

5 FOOD INVENTORY.—

6 ‘‘(A) CONTRIBUTIONS BY NON-CORPORATE

7 TAXPAYERS.—In the case of a charitable con8 tribution of food, paragraph (3) shall be applied

9 without regard to whether or not the contribu10 tion is made by a corporation.

11 ‘‘(B) DETERMINATION OF FAIR MARKET

12 VALUE.—For purposes of this section, in the

13 case of a charitable contribution of food which

14 is a qualified contribution (within the meaning

15 of paragraph (3), as modified by subparagraph

16 (A) of this paragraph) and which, solely by rea17 son of internal standards of the taxpayer, lack

18 of market, or similar circumstances, cannot or

19 will not be sold, the fair market value of such

20 contribution shall be determined—

21 ‘‘(i) without regard to such internal

22 standards, such lack of market, or such

23 circumstances, and

24 ‘‘(ii) if applicable, by taking into ac25 count the price at which the same or simi-
3

•HR 1659 IH

1 lar food items are sold by the taxpayer at

2 the time of the contribution (or, if not so

3 sold at such time, in the recent past).’’

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

5 subsection (a) shall apply to taxable years beginning after

6 December 31, 2001.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          38,977
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,999
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        156
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               115,686
<PP&E>                                          24,546
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,262
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 173,457
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,795
<BONDS>                                            513
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            7,000
<PREFERRED>                                          1<F1>
<COMMON>                                             7
<OTHER-SE>                                     154,571
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   173,457
<SALES>                                          2,852
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                17,308
<CGS>                                              626
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   11,004
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,273
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,301
<INCOME-TAX>                                       321
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,980
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,980
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  ($0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  ($0.02)
<FN>
<F1>Represents par value of Reading Entertainment Series B preferred stock
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 08-cr-01-PB

Robert DeMatteo

O R D E R

The defendant, through counsel, has moved to continue the

April 1, 2008 trial in the above case to allow additional time to

complete discovery and engage in plea negotiations. The

government does not object to a continuance of the trial date.

Accordingly, for the above reason and to allow the parties

additional time to properly prepare for trial, the court will

continue the trial from April 1, 2008 to June 3, 2008. 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 1:08-cr-00001-PB Document 21 Filed 03/28/08 Page 1 of 2
2

The March 28, 2008 final pretrial conference is continued to

May 21, 2008 at 3:45 p.m.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

March 28, 2008

cc: Jeffrey Levin, Esq.

Robert Kinsella, AUSA

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:08-cr-00001-PB Document 21 Filed 03/28/08 Page 2 of 2
#### In the Matter of Louis Gelsomino et al., Appellants-Respondents, v City of New Rochelle, Respondent-Appellant.

[809 NYS2d 122]

In a condemnation proceeding, the claimants appeal, as limited by their brief, on the ground of inadequacy, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rosato, J.), dated July 20, 2004, as, after a nonjury trial, is in favor of them and against the City of New Rochelle in the principal sum of only $420,000, and the City of New Rochelle cross-appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of the same judgment as awarded the claimants a $70,000 premium for development potential of the property and additional allowances in the sum of $17,833 pursuant to EDPL 701.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Pursuant to an urban renewal plan, the condemnor, the City of New Rochelle, appropriated the parcel belonging to the claimants in November 2001. The parties do not contend that the Supreme Court’s award of $350,000 for the parcel “as is” was improvident. Rather, the condemnor contends that the *555Supreme Court’s determination as to the value of the development potential of the parcel, to wit, a $70,000 premium over the $350,000, was improvident, and the claimants contend that the determination was inadequate. The Supreme Court rejected the claimants’ valuation of $270,000 for development potential as too optimistic and the condemnor’s valuation of $0 for development potential as too pessimistic, finding that the parcel had some development potential since development was feasible, although difficult. Since the Supreme Court’s determination as to development potential was within the range proffered by the parties’ appraisers, and adequately explained, we decline to disturb it on appeal *(see Matter of City of New York [Reiss],*55 NY2d 885 [1982]; *Matter of Sun Plaza Enters., Corp. v Tax Commn. of City of N.Y.,*304 AD2d 763 [2003]; *627 Smith St. Corp. v Bureau of Waste Disposal of Dept. of Sanitation of City of N.Y.,*289 AD2d 472, 474 [2001]).

Furthermore, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in awarding the claimants additional allowances in the sum of $17,833 comprised of an attorney’s fee of $12,210, an expert’s fee of $2,750, and disbursements of $2,873. The condemnor’s initial offer was $310,000, while the claimants were awarded $420,000. The $110,000 difference was 35.5% above the offer, and the award was necessary for the claimants to achieve just and adequate compensation *(see*EDPL 701; *Hakes v State of New York,*81 NY2d 392, 397-398 [1993]; *Matter of Daniel Shakespeare Corp. v Incorporated Vil. of Hempstead,*2 AD3d 853 [2003]; *Matter of Town of Islip v Sikora,*220 AD2d 434 [1995]; *Scuderi v State of New York,*184 AD2d 1073 [1992]).

We note that any error in the admission of improper lay opinion was harmless. Cozier, J.P., Krausman, Skelos and Lunn, JJ., concur.