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

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Small Business Administration

          - [Disaster Declaration # 11264 and # 11265]

# AGENCY:

U.S. Small Business Administration.

# ACTION:

Amendment 14.

# SUMMARY:

This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Iowa (FEMA-1763-DR), dated 05/27/2008.

*Incident:*                         Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding.                    

*Incident Period:*                         05/25/2008 through 08/13/2008.                    

# DATES:

*Effective Date:*                         09/25/2008.                    

*Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         10/31/2008.                    

*EIDL Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         02/27/2009.                    

# ADDRESSES:

Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for the State of Iowa, dated 05/27/2008 is hereby amended to extend the deadline for filing applications for physical damages as a result of this disaster to 10/31/2008.

All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008)

Herbert L. Mitchell,

Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.

 [FR Doc. E8-23462 Filed 10-3-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 359 filed 01/14/14 USDC Colorado pg 1 of 6
Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 359 filed 01/14/14 USDC Colorado pg 2 of 6
Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 359 filed 01/14/14 USDC Colorado pg 3 of 6
Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 359 filed 01/14/14 USDC Colorado pg 4 of 6
Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 359 filed 01/14/14 USDC Colorado pg 5 of 6
Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 359 filed 01/14/14 USDC Colorado pg 6 of 6
#### Emma J. Dishaw et al., Appellants, v Kevin A. Jones et al., Respondents.

[745 NYS2d 327]

Mugglin, J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Demarest, J.), entered July 23, 2001 in St. Lawrence County, which denied plaintiffs’ motion to set aside the verdict.

The sole issue on this appeal is the adequacy of a jury verdict awarding plaintiff Emma J. Dishaw (hereinafter plaintiff) $2,000 for past pain and suffering and $11,960 for future pain and suffering, and awarding plaintiff John E. Dishaw zero on his derivative claim. It is well settled that “[t]he amount of compensation to be awarded to an injured person is a question of fact to be resolved by the trier of fact and will only be disturbed when it deviates materially from what would be reasonable compensation” *(Simeon v Urrey,*278 AD2d 624, 624; *see, Murphy v Lewry,*235 AD2d 968, 969). Considerable deference is given to the jury’s interpretation of the trial evidence as it relates to the determination of damages, and an award will be disturbed only when the verdict rendered could not have been reached on any fair interpretation of the evidence *(see, Duncan v Hillebrandt,*239 AD2d 811, 813; *Simeon v Urrey, supra*at 624).

Applying these settled principles to the facts of this case results in an affirmance. Plaintiffs’ experts testified that, as a result of this accident, plaintiff suffered injuries to her left temporal mandibular joint (hereinafter TMJ), her neck, left shoulder and left arm. Defendants’ proof, however, established that plaintiff had been involved in three prior automobile accidents and an industrial accident, that she was classified totally disabled by the Social Security Administration prior to this accident, that except for the TMJ injury, she had received extensive treatment for the other injuries claimed in this accident, and that some of her current complaints result not from trauma, but from degenerative conditions. Moreover, defen*820dants established that plaintiff failed to mitigate her damages by refusing recommended neck fusion surgery and recommended treatment for her TMJ condition, choosing instead to “live with” those problems.

Finally, with respect to the derivative claim, plaintiff testified on cross-examination, in essence, that she could not think of anything that she was unable to do after this accident that she could do prior to this accident. Under these circumstances, we conclude that the totality of the trial evidence furnishes an appropriate basis for the jury’s damage determinations and that these awards did not deviate materially from reasonable compensation and should be affirmed (see, *Lolik v Big V Supermarkets,*86 NY2d 744, 746).

Mercure, J.P., Peters, Carpinello and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
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











The undersigned officer of Pizza Inn, Inc. (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge, that the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 26, 2011, and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Form 10-K”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








Date: September 14, 2011

By:
/s/ Nancy Ellefson

Vice President of Finance and Principal Accounting Officer

(Principal Financial Officer)
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

                             CRAGAR INDUSTRIES, INC.
                  SCHEDULE OF COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
PRIMARY EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE                                         Three Months Ended March 31,
                                                                             1997               1996
                                                                          ----------         ---------
<S>                                                                       <C>                <C>    
Net earnings                                                              $    8,588           318,740
                                                                          ==========         =========

Weighted average number of common shares equivalent
      Weighted average common shares outstanding (1)                       2,210,305           930,584
 
      Common equivalent shares using the Treasury Stock Method (2)           176,019           183,475
                                                                          ----------         ---------

Average common shares outstanding                                          2,386,324         1,114,059
                                                                          ==========         =========

Net earnings per common share and common equivalent share                 $     0.00              0.29
                                                                          ==========         =========
</TABLE>


(1)   Gives effect to the weighted average number of actual common shares
      outstanding during each period presented.

(2)   Gives effect to the exercise of  various outstanding warrants and options
      during the periods presented using the treasury stock method.
DISTRICT COURT, JEFFERSON COUNTY, 

STATE OF COLORADO 

100 Jefferson County Parkway 

Golden, Colorado 80401 

Phone: (303) 271-6145 

Fax: (303) 582-3112 

Plaintiff: BANK OF CHOICE, a Colorado corporation, 

v. 

Defendants: CROSSROADS COMMERCIAL 

CENTER, LTD., LLLP, a Colorado limited liability 

limited partnership, and RANDOLPH G. CURRIER, 

an individual. ▲ COURT USE ONLY ▲

Case No.: 2010 CV 5138 

Div.: 3 Ctrm: 4F 

ORDER 

 THIS MATTER, having come before the Court on Defendants’ Verified Motion for 

Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and the Court, 

having reviewed the pleadings and being fully advised thereof, hereby FINDS Defendants have 

shown good cause for the extension requested and GRANTS Defendants’ Motion. The Court 

therefore ORDERS: 

The deadline for Defendants’ Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment 

shall be extended up to and including March 22, 2011. 

Dated: January 21, 2011 

 BY THE COURT: 

 

 Jane A. Tidball 

 District Court Judge 

GRANTED 

WITH 

COMMENTS 

The moving party is hereby ORDERED 

to provide a copy of this Order to any pro 

se parties who have entered an 

appearance in this action within 10 days 

from the date of this order. 

___________________________ 

Jane Tidball 

Jefferson District Court Judge 

EFILED Document DATE OF ORDER INDICATED ON ATTACHMENT

CO Jefferson County District Court 1st JD 

Filing Date: Jan 27 2011 3:16PM MST 

Filing ID: 35627153 

Review Clerk: Beth B

Case 1:11-cv-02286-REB-CBS Document 18 Filed 08/31/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
Defendants will have 15 calendar days from the date of this Order to file their response to Plaintiff's Motion for 

Summary Judgment. 

/s/ Judge Jane A Tidball 

Court: CO Jefferson County District Court 1st JD 

Judge: Jane A Tidball 

Alternate Judge: Unassigned 

File & Serve 

Transaction ID: 35522192 

Current Date: Jan 27, 2011 

Case Number: 2010CV5138 

Case Name: BANK OF CHOICE vs. CROSSROADS COMMERCIAL CENTER LTD LLLP et al 

Court Authorizer: Jane A Tidball 

Court Authorizer 

Comments: 

Case 1:11-cv-02286-REB-CBS Document 18 Filed 08/31/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
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 New generation Holdings, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert
Scherne, interim Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my
knowledge 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 result of operations of the Company.


                                       /s/ Robert Scherne
                                       -------------------------------
                                       Robert Scherne
                                       Chief Financial Officer

                                       January _, 2007
#### Eleanor A. Nobark, Plaintiff, *v.*Frank V. Nobark, Defendant.

Supreme Court, Kings County,

March 21, 1957.

*Milton Kuslansky*for plaintiff.

No appearance for defendant.

Frank E. Johnson, Off. Ref.

Testimony has been taken under the order to hear and determine this uncontested divorce action. Plaintiff, by falsely claiming a three-year residence in Connecticut, obtained a divorce from defendant; thereafter defendant married in this State, stating the fact of previous marriage to plaintiff, and the divorce; thereafter plaintiff’s decree was, on the motion of the Connecticut Attorney-Greneral, vacated for plaintiff’s fraud and perjury, thereafter she brought this action, claiming that the defendant’s second marriage, and cohabitation, constituted adultery. The' complaint herein says nothing about his alleged complicity in the Connecticut fraud, or his alleged payment of her attorney there, so his default in this action does not permit an inference that he admits those charges, not made till she took the stand. In the *792Mexican “ overnight-divorce ” cases cited no such situation existed; the party procuring it against a New York resident obtained no rights in this State, since the “ divorced” spouse was not divorced in the eyes of our courts. The equity, if any, which this plaintiff has to ask this equity court to shut its eyes to her unclean hands, is partly based on the defendant’s alleged complicity; that rests upon her veracity, and there is no other evidence given that will spread the fraud and perjury to defendant. He was given no notice in the served complaint of her intention to blame it on him. If, as is usually said, “ the validity of a marriage is determined by the law of the place where it was contracted; if valid there it will be held valid elsewhere ” (55 O. J. S., Marriage, § 4, pp. 811-812, citing many New York cases), the plaintiff must directly, and not collaterally, attack the defendant’s second marriage; it was based on a then existing State decree which New York was *then*required to honor, and the marriage conformed to all our then statutes. If upon these facts she should now have a divorce, although he and his second New York wife were duly married here and are still living together, it would seem better for her to seek relief in the appellate court that can decide whether public policy warrants such relief. It may be, however, that plaintiff, instead of now being dismissed, should be allowed to move in Special Term, Part Y, to amend her complaint, and serve defendant therewith; therefore the order, and the records, exhibits, etc., here, are respectfully referred to the Justice who made the order of reference, so that the matter may be hereafter presented to him.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-10433 USDC No. 5:94-CR-069

__________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JOHONNAS J. EICKE, Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

---------------------- August 15, 1995 Before GARWOOD, BENAVIDES and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
BY THE COURT: This court must examine the basis of its jurisdiction on its own motion if necessary. Mosley v. Cozby , 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987). In this criminal proceeding, the defendant has filed a notice of appeal from the district court's determination that he is competent to stand trial. Federal appellate courts have jurisdiction over appeals only from (1) final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291; (2) orders that are deemed final due to jurisprudential exception or that have been properly certified as final pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); and (3) interlocutory orders that fall into specific classes, 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a), or that have been properly certified for appeal by the district court, 28 U.S.C.O R D E R No. 95-10433 -2-
§ 1292(b). See Dardar v. Lafourche Realty Co. , 849 F.2d 955, 957 (5th Cir. 1988); Save the Bay, Inc. v. United States Army , 639 F.2d 1100, 1102 (5th Cir. 1981). A decision is final when it "ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment." Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay , 437 U.S. 463, 467 (1978) (internal quotations and citation omitted). The district court has not entered a final or otherwise appealable order in this case, and we can discern no basis for appellate jurisdiction. Thus, the motion for transcripts is DENIED as moot and the appeal is DISMISSED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997             DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997             SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          55,186                 138,413
<SECURITIES>                                    71,214                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  145,221                 152,274
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               284,136                 295,725
<PP&E>                                          61,879                  49,295
<DEPRECIATION>                                  38,324                  30,728
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 323,711                 318,261
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           42,347                  37,984
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                           486                     464
<OTHER-SE>                                           0                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   323,711                 318,261
<SALES>                                              0                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               116,043                 100,677
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                76,054                  65,576
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (5,811)                     815
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 45,800                  34,286
<INCOME-TAX>                                    18,930                  14,160
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             26,870                  20,126
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                    26,870                  20,126
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .55                       0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .55                       0
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.22

          SCHEDULE TO FORM OF ANGELES PRE-DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, TYPE I
           PURSUANT TO INSTRUCTION 2 TO ITEM 601(a) OF REGULATION S-K


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                LOCATION OF    NUMBER     TOTAL AMOUNT   50% OF DEVELOPER     10% OF DEVELOPER
                LAND           OF UNITS   OF DEVELOPER   FEE PAYABLE ON       FEE PAYABLE AT THE
                                          FEE            THE EARLIER OF       END OF EACH MONTH
                                                         THE FOLLOWING        OF THE FOLLOWING
                                                         DATE OR CLOSING      PERIOD
                                                                              
<S>             <C>            <C>        <C>            <C>                  <C>
BATON ROUGE,    Baton          80         $400,000       November 30, 1998    December 31, 1998
LOUISIANA       Rouge,                                                        to April 30, 1999
                Louisiana                                                     

CLARKSVILLE,                              $300,000       November 30, 1998    December 31, 1998
TENNESSEE       Tennessee                                                     to April 30, 1999
</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Chief Judge Wiley Y. Daniel

Criminal Case No. 11-cr-00293-WYD

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

1. JAIME SANCHEZ-CAMACHO,

Defendant.

ORDER

This matter is before the Court upon a review of the file. It is hereby 

ORDERED that a 3-day jury trial is set for Monday, October 3, 2011, at 9:00

a.m. in Courtroom A-1002. It is 

FURTHER ORDERED that any pretrial motions by Defendant shall be filed on or

before September 12, 2011. It is 

FURTHER ORDERED that Counsel shall contact chambers to schedule a

hearing on pending motions, if any, and final trial preparation conference, if necessary. 

Dated: August 3, 2011

BY THE COURT:

s/ Wiley Y. Daniel 

Wiley Y. Daniel

Chief United States District Judge

Case 1:11-cr-00293-WYD Document 11 Filed 08/03/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

SCHAWK, INC.

1.       Schawk Canada, Inc.

         a.       Stanmount, Inc.

         b.       Herzig Sommerville Limited

         c.       Design Partners

         d.       Cactus Imaging Services, Inc.

2.       Schawk de Mexico, S.A. de C.V.

         a.       Schawk Servicios Administrativos, S.A. de C.V.

3.       Schawk GmbH

4.       Schawk USA, Inc. (wholly-owned subsidiary of Schawk, Inc.)

         a.       Chromart Corporation

         b.       Horan Imaging Solutions, Inc.

         c.       Interprocess Service, Inc.

         d.       Intergraphx, Inc.

         e.       Color One, Inc.

         f.       LSI/Kala, Inc.

         g.       Schawk (BVI) Holdings, Inc.

                  i.       Schawk (BVI) Services, Inc.

                  ii.      Schawk Labaun

                           (1)      Laserscan (Sdn Berhad) (Company No.
                                    138179-A)

                                    (x)      Laserscan (KL) Sdn Bhd

                                    (y)      Laserscan (Singapore) Pte Ltd.

                                    (z)      Laserscan Flexographic Sdn Bhd

                                    (aa)     Laserscan Technology (M) Sdn Bhd

                                    (bb)     Tayo Laserscan Flexographic
                                             (Shanghai) Co. Ltd.

5.       Schawk Asia, Inc.