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

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 36 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 36

  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to 
 abolish the Electoral College and provide for the direct election of 
the President and Vice President by the popular vote of all citizens of 
          the United States regardless of place of residence.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 13, 2007

  Mr. Jackson of Illinois introduced the following joint resolution; 
          which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to 
 abolish the Electoral College and provide for the direct election of 
the President and Vice President by the popular vote of all citizens of 
          the United States regardless of place of residence.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled   (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 
within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

                              ``Article --

    ``Section 1.  The President and Vice President shall be elected 
jointly by the direct vote of the citizens of the United States, 
without regard to whether the citizens are residents of a State.
    ``Section 2.  The persons having the greatest number of votes for 
President and Vice President shall be elected, so long as such persons 
have a majority of the votes cast.''.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 99

     Forward-Looking  Information

     "Safe  Harbor" Statement under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act
of  1995:  The  statements contained in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q which
are  not  historical  facts  contain forward looking information with respect to
plans,  projections  or  future  performance of Coastal, the occurrence of which
involve  certain  risks and uncertainties detailed in Coastal's filings with the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  ("SEC").

     The Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results
of  Operations set forth in the Form 10-Q should be read in conjunction with the
information  contained  in  the  Consolidated Financial Statements and the Notes
thereto.  Such  discussion  contains  "forward-looking  statements"  within  the
meaning  of  the  Private  Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (the "Reform
Act"),  and is subject to the safe harbor created by that Reform Act.  The words
"estimate," "project," "anticipate," "expect," "intend," "believe," "plans," and
similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements. Because
such  forward-looking  statements  involve  risks  and  uncertainties, there are
important  factors  that  could  cause  actual results to differ materially from
those  expressed  or implied by such forward-looking statements. Factors, all of
which  are  difficult  to  predict  and  many of which are beyond the control of
Coastal,  that  could cause actual results to differ materially include, but are
not  limited  to:  risks  related  to  Coastal's acquisition strategy, including
risks  of  adversely  changing  results  of  operations  and  factors  affecting
Coastal's  ability  to  consummate  further  acquisitions;  risks  involved  in
Coastal's  ability  to  quickly  and  efficiently  integrate  the  operations of
acquired  entities  with  those  of  Coastal;  changes  in  general economic and
business  conditions;  changes  in market rates of interest; changes in the laws
and  regulations  applicable  to  Coastal;  the risks associated with the Bank's
non-traditional  lending  (loans  other  than single-family residential mortgage
loans  such  as multifamily, real estate acquisition and development, commercial
real  estate,  commercial  business,  warehouse  and  mortgage  servicing rights
loans);  and  changes  in  business strategies and other factors as discussed in
Coastal's  Annual  Report  on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1998, as
filed  with  the  SEC  on  March  23,  1999.
CKE RESTAURANTS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

EXHIBITS AND REPORTS ON FORM 8-K



EXHIBIT 99.2



CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORTS PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §1350



The undersigned hereby certifies that he is the duly appointed and acting Chief Financial Officer of CKE Restaurants, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Company), and hereby further certifies as follows.



1. The periodic report containing financial statements to which this
certificate is an exhibit fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.



2. The information contained in the periodic report to which this certificate is an exhibit fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.



In witness whereof, the undersigned has executed
and delivered this certificate as of the date set forth opposite his signature below.



|                    |  |  | 
|------------------- |  |  | 
|Date:  July 1, 2003 |  |  | 
|                    |  |  | 
|                    |  |  |
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Tevin MARCELIN.

No. 2011-KK-1738.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 14, 2011.

In re Marcelin, Tevin; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. I, No. 503-657; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-K-862.

Granted. The trial court erred in finding the other crimes evidence admissible.

KNOLL and GUIDRY, JJ„ would deny.
#### Carlos COSTA, Phyllis Skora, and Gary Emken, Appellants, v. MMG DEVELOPMENT CORP., et al., Appellees.

No. 5D10-177.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

April 21, 2011.

Lilliana M. Fariñas-Sabogal, Marlene Kirtland of Becker & Poliakoff, P.A., Coral Gables, for Appellants.

Robert W. Thielhelm and Benjamin A. Webster of Baker & Hostetler, LLP, Orlando, for Appellees, MMG Development Corp., Diamond Resorts Management, Inc., Troy Magdos, Marilyn Windsor, and Linda Riddle.

Stacy J. Ford of Pohl & Short, P.A., Winter Park, for Appellee, Polynesian Isles Resort Master Association, Inc.

PER CURIAM.

In this appeal, the Appellants challenge the trial court’s order entering final summary judgment in favor of Appellees. The record confirms that the trial court’s ruling was correct. We agree that there were no genuine issues of material fact and that the Appellees were entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.

AFFIRMED.

MONACO, C.J., PALMER and JACOBUS, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                         260,201
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,925
<ALLOWANCES>                                       714
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               269,981
<PP&E>                                           8,601
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,521
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 408,611
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           15,740
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            28
<OTHER-SE>                                     292,052
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   408,611
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                33,767
<CGS>                                           11,550
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   50,947
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (2,715)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (2,715)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (2,715)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.11)


</TABLE>
#### STATE ex rel. Andy MAGEE v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2011-KH-0240.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 2, 2011.

In re Magee, Andy; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Washington, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. I, No. CR981002; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 KW 1685.

Denied.
Amendment #4 to the 2006 Long-Term Incentive Plan for Non-Employee Directors



 Exhibit 10.24 
 AMENDMENT NO. 4 
 TO THE 2006 LONG TERM INCENTIVE PLAN FOR 
 NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS OF THE COOPER COMPANIES, INC. 
 WHEREAS, The Cooper Companies, Inc. (the “Corporation”) has adopted the 2006 Long Term Incentive Plan for Non-Employee Directors of the Cooper Companies, Inc. (the “Plan”); and 

WHEREAS, Section 11 of the Plan permits the Board of Directors of the Corporation to amend the Plan, subject to certain limitations; and

 WHEREAS, the Board of the Corporation desires to amend the Plan to add discretionary grants under the Plan; 
 NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended as follows: 
 FIRST: By adding the following Section 5(d) to the Plan: 
 (d) In its sole
discretion, the Board of Directors may grant to Non-Employee Directors such number of Stock Options and/or Restricted Stock as it may determine from time to time, subject only to the limitations on the number of Stock Options and Restricted Stock
Grants that may be made under the terms of the Plan. Unless otherwise specified by the Board of Directors at the time of the grant, each share of Restricted Stock and each Stock Option granted under this Section 5(d) shall have the terms
applicable to Annual Restricted Stock Grants under Section 6(a)-(f) and Stock Options under Section 7(a)-(g), other than any requirement as to the number of shares subject to such grant. 
 SECOND: The provisions of the First Paragraph hereof shall be effective December 11, 2008. 
 THIRD: Except to the extent herein above set forth, the Plan shall remain in full force and effect. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of Directors of the Corporation has caused this Amendment to the Plan to be executed by a duly authorized officer of
the Corporation on December 11, 2008. 
  

			
	THE COOPER COMPANIES, INC.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Carol R. Kaufman

		 	Carol R. Kaufman
	Title:	 	Senior Vice President of Legal Affairs, Secretary and Chief Administrative Officer
FORM OF FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT



 EXHIBIT 10(f) 
  
 FORM OF FIRST AMENDMENT 
 TO 
 EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
  
 WHEREAS, Seacoast Financial Services Corporation, a Massachusetts corporation (the “Holding Company”) and
the parent company for Compass Bank for Savings, a Massachusetts chartered savings bank, with its executive offices in New Bedford, Massachusetts (the “Bank,” and together with the Holding Company, the “Employers”) and the
undersigned executive of the Bank (the “Executive”) are parties to that certain Employment Agreement dated November 20, 1998 (the “Employment Agreement”); and 
  
 WHEREAS, the Employers and the Executive desire to amend the Employment Agreement in accordance with Section 14.10
thereof; 
  
 NOW, THEREFORE, the Employers and the
Executive, intending to the legally bound, do hereby agree to amend the Employment Agreement as follows: 
  
 1.    Section 7.4 of the Employment Agreement is amended by adding the following subsection 7.4(h) to the end of subsection 7.4(g)
thereof: 
  
 “(h) The relocation of the Executive’s
place of employment to a location more than 35 miles from each of (x) the Employers’ present main offices and (y) the Executive’s residence.” 
  
 2.    Section 9.2 of the Employment Agreement is amended by deleting such section thereof in its entirety and replacing it with the
following: 
  
 “9.2 Lump Sum Severance Payment. A lump sum
severance payment equal to three times the average of the sum of the Executive’s W-2 compensation plus contributions made on the Executive’s behalf to the Bank’s Employee Stock Ownership Plan and 401(k) Plan for the three calendar
years preceding the date of termination.” 
  
 3.    Section 9.4 of the Employment Agreement is amended by deleting such section thereof in its entirety. 
  
 4.    The Employment Agreement is amended by adding a new Section 15 immediately following Section 14 as follows: 
  
 “15. Excise Taxes. In the event that the Executive shall have imposed
upon him the tax which is imposed by Section 4999 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”) or by any successor provision, by reason of any payment or benefit which the Executive has received from the Holding Company or
any Subsidiaries, the Holding Company shall pay as additional compensation to the Executive that 







 amount which, after taking into account all taxes (including any tax which shall be imposed by Code
Section 4999) imposed upon such amount by any federal, state or local government, shall be equal to the amount of said tax imposed by Code Section 4999.” 
  

5.    Except as so amended, the Employment Agreement in all other respects is hereby confirmed. 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Holding Company and the Executive have executed this Amendment as of the
4th day of December, 2003. 
  

	SEACOAST FINANCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION
		
	By:	 	 
	 	

	 	 	Title: President and CEO


  

	EXECUTIVE
		
	Name:
NUMBER 13-04-00035-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

______________________________________________________________

ROSA IMELDA RIVERA, EDUARDO 

CAVAZOS MONTEMAYOR, AND 

MARCELA MONTEMAYOR, Appellants,

v.

PAT L. PACE AND MARY JOE PACE, ET AL., Appellees. 

_____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 357th District Court 

of Cameron County, Texas.

______________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Rodriguez, Garza, and Vela

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

This appeal was abated by this Court on June 3, 2004, due to the bankruptcy of one

of the parties to this appeal. See 11 U.S.C. § 362; see generally TEX. R. APP. P. 8. Since

the abatement there has been no activity in this appeal. On February 5, 2009, the Court
2

ordered the parties to file an advisory regarding the status of the appeal and, if applicable,

a motion to reinstate the appeal or a motion to dismiss the appeal. 

Appellants responded to the order by informing the Court that they no longer desire

to prosecute their appeal and the case should be reinstated and dismissed for want of

prosecution. Accordingly, we reinstate and dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution.

See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b).

PER CURIAM

Memorandum Opinion delivered and 

filed this the 12th day of March, 2009.
##### 



1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Advocat Inc.;
 2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;
 3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;
 4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
 (a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls
and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us
by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is
being prepared;(b)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal
control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide
reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation
of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles;(c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures
and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
evaluation; and(d)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent quarter that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrants board of directors:
 (a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;
and(b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrants internal controls over financial reporting.
 November 6, 2007
    /s/ L. Glynn Riddle, Jr.L. Glynn Riddle, Jr.Chief Financial Officer
IN THE

SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS

TEXARKANA, TEXAS

NANCY HART AND ALL OTHER §

OCCUPANTS §

§ 

v. § NO. 06-14-00103-CV

§ 

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. § 

 MOTION TO DISMISS

TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS:

COMES NOW, Nancy Hart and All Other Occupants, Appellants, in the abovereferenced cause (collectively, “Appellant”), pursuant to Rule 10.5(b) and 42.1(a)(1) of the Texas

Rules of Appellant Procedure, moves for an order dismissing this appeal. In support hereof,

Appellant respectfully represents to the Court as follows:

 I.

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

A conference was held on February 26, 2015, with Mark D. Hopkins, Esq., counsel for

Appellee, on the merits of this motion, and the opposing party does oppose the motion.

II.

Appellant, Nancy Hart and All Other Occupants, no longer desire to pursue this appeal. 

The parties have resolved their disputes to their mutual satisfaction. There is no relief sought by

appellee which would prevent the dismissal of this appeal.

-1-

ACCEPTED

06-14-00103-CV

SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS

TEXARKANA, TEXAS

3/30/2015 6:49:49 PM

DEBBIE AUTREY

CLERK

 FILED IN 6th COURT OF APPEALS TEXARKANA, TEXAS 3/31/2015 9:38:00 AM DEBBIE AUTREY Clerk
II.

The dismissal requested will not prejudice Appellant nor Appellee. Appellant brings this

motion so that substantial justice may be done. 

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Appellant respectfully requests that the

Court grant this Appellant’s motion to dismiss and grant Appellant such other and further relief

to which Appellant may be justly entitled.

Respectfully submitted,

The Law Offices of Ronald E. Harden, P.L.L.C.

__/s/ Ronald E. Harden_____________________

Ronald E. Harden

State Bar No. 00792079

P.O. Box 776

Terrell, Texas 75160

Telephone: (214) 683-7346

Telecopier: (214) 960-4226

COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT,

 NANCY HART and All Other Occupants

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the 30th day of March, 2015, a copy of the foregoing document

was served upon trial counsel of record for the Appellee, Mark D. Hopkins, Esq., Hopkins &

Williams, PLLC, 12117 Bee Caves Road, Suite 260, Austin, Texas 78738, by regular mail,

postage pre-paid and properly addressed, in accordance with Rule 9.5 of the Texas Rules of

Appellate Procedure.

____/s/_Ronald E. Harden___________________

Ronald E. Harden

 

-2-
#### Aletha Brown THOMAS v. Brian THOMAS.

2071171.

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

July 30, 2010.

*364Stephen M. NeSmith and Riggs & NeS-mith, P.A., Montgomery; and J. Keith Rodgers, Montgomery, for appellant.

C. Franklin Snowden III, Montgomery, for appellee.

*On Remand-from the Alabama Supreme Court*

THOMAS, Judge.

The Alabama Supreme Court has held that the prior judgment of this court is void for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. *See Ex parte Thomas,*54 So.3d 356, 362 (Ala.2010). On remand to this court, and in compliance with the supreme court’s opinion, we vacate our judgment, dismiss the appeal, and instruct the trial court to vacate its judgment.

APPEAL DISMISSED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

THOMPSON, P.J., and PITTMAN, BRYAN, and MOORE, JJ., concur.