alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                       1,977,684
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   65,704
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    386,081
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,513,828
<PP&E>                                         461,469
<DEPRECIATION>                                 332,634
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,597,547
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          444,117
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       131,925
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,916,060
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,597,547
<SALES>                                        228,959
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               677,867
<CGS>                                          318,283
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,021,329
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                63,319
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              58,396
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,384,831)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,384,831)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,384,831)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.19)
        

</TABLE>
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

May 8, 2015

N o. 04

- 14

- 00558

- CV

Edna A. MARTINEZ

, Appellant

v.

STATE OFFICE OF RISK MANAGEMENT

,

Appellee

From the 37th Judicial District Cour t, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2001

- CI

- 17102

Honorable Antonia Arteaga, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellant’s motion for extension of time to file her reply brief is granted. Her reply brief

is due May 20, 2015. NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS WILL BE GRANTED.

_________________________________ Karen Angelini, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 8th day of May, 2015

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1175 

To amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities 

Act to increase the ceiling on the Federal share of the costs of phase 

I of the Orange County, California, Regional Water Reclamation Project. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 16, 2007 

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California (for herself, Mr. CALVERT, Mr. GARY

G. MILLER of California, Mr. ROHRABACHER, Mr. ROYCE, and Mr. 

CAMPBELL of California) introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater 

Study and Facilities Act to increase the ceiling on the 

Federal share of the costs of phase I of the Orange 

County, California, Regional Water Reclamation Project. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CEILING INCREASE ON FEDERAL SHARE OF 

4 WATER RECLAMATION PROJECT. 

5 Section 1631(d) of the Reclamation Wastewater and 

6 Groundwater Study and Facilities Act (43 U.S.C. 390h– 

7 13(d)) is amended— 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
2 

•HR 1175 IH

1 (1) in paragraph (1) by striking ‘‘paragraph 

2 (2)’’ and inserting ‘‘paragraphs (2) and (3)’’; and 

3 (2) by adding at the end the following new 

4 paragraph: 

5 ‘‘(3) The Federal share of the costs of the 

6 project authorized by section 1624 shall not exceed 

7 the following: 

8 ‘‘(A) $22,000,000 for fiscal year 2007. 

9 ‘‘(B) $24,200,000 for fiscal year 2008. 

10 ‘‘(C) $26,620,000 for fiscal year 2009. 

11 ‘‘(D) $29,282,000 for fiscal year 2010. 

12 ‘‘(E) $32,210,200 for fiscal year 2011. 

13 ‘‘(F) $35,431,220 for fiscal year 2012. 

14 ‘‘(G) $38,974,342 for fiscal year 2013. 

15 ‘‘(H) $42,871,776 for fiscal year 2014. 

16 ‘‘(I) $47,158,953 for fiscal year 2015. 

17 ‘‘(J) $51,874,849 for fiscal year 2016.’’. 

Æ 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
583 A.2d 333

#### PRUDENTIAL PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY v. CAROL M. HANSEN.

March 7, 1990.

Petition for certification granted.
##### 



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 Annual Report of Silverleaf Resorts, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Harry
J. White, Jr., 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 result of operations
of the Company. Dated:
March 29, 2004
    
    
    /s/ HARRY J. WHITE, JR.Harry J. White, Jr.
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to Silverleaf Resorts, Inc. and will be retained by Silverleaf
Resorts, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
#### STATE ex rel. Johnny Lee CHEEK v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2010-KH-1075.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 6, 2011.

In re Cheek, Johnny Lee; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. John, 40th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 06 — 338—(1); to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 10-KH-212.

Denied.
Exhibit 10.6


 


FIRST AMENDMENT


TO THE


MIVA, INC. (FKA FINDWHAT.COM, INC.)


1999 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN


 


Background Information


 


A.            Miva, Inc. (the
“Company”) maintains the MIVA, Inc. (fka FindWhat.com, Inc.) 1999
Stock Incentive Plan, as amended on December 15, 2003 (the “Plan”).


 


B.            The United States
Treasury Department issued final regulations that mandate Plan amendments with
respect to Internal Revenue Code Section 409A.


 


C.            The Company has the
power to amend and modify the Plan pursuant to Section 10 thereof.


 


D.            The Company desires
to amend the Plan to bring the Plan into compliance with Internal Revenue Code Section 409A.


 


Plan Amendment


 


The amendments set forth below shall be effective January 1, 2009.


 


1.             The
following Section 12(m) is added to the Plan:


 


“This plan will be administered in such a manner so that awards are
either exempt from, or compliant with, Section 409A of the Code.”


 


2.             The
remainder of the Plan shall remain unchanged.


 


[SIGNATURE
BLOCK FOLLOWS ON NEXT PAGE]


 


1

















 


The Company has caused this First Amendment
to the FindWhat.com, Inc. 1999 Stock Incentive Plan, as amended on December 15,
2003 to be executed on its behalf, by its officer duly authorized, this 18th
day of December, 2008.


 


	
   

  	
  Miva, Inc.

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
              John
  Pisaris

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Its:

  	
            General
  Counsel and Secretary

  



 


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 on Form 10-Q of Winston Hotels, Inc.
(the Company) for the period ending March 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Joseph
V. Green, 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,
that: (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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/ Joseph V. GreenName:
    
    Joseph V. GreenTitle:
    
    Chief Financial OfficerDate:
    
    May 10, 2004
#### PRIME INSURANCE COMPANY v. IMPERIAL FIRE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY.

No. 2011-CC-2285.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 2, 2011.

In re Imperial Fire and Casualty Insurance Company; — Defendant; Applying *1178For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. D, No. 2011-01927; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-C-1228.

Denied.
#### Collier *v.*Baum et al.

[No. 19,669.

Filed March 1, 1962.]

*128*C. W. H. Bangs,*and *Bangs & Yates, of*Huntington, for appellant.

*Graham, Rasor, Eschbach & Harris,*of Warsaw, for appellees.

Ryan, C. J.

This was an action by the appellees against the appellant on a promissory note, which resulted in a verdict by the jury in favor of the appellees with consistent judgment being rendered thereon. The appellees have now filed their motion to dismiss or affirm on the grounds that the appellant has failed to comply with Supreme Court Rules 2-5 and 2-17.

The appellant’s brief in the argument portion thereof, which consists of three pages, presents us with two main topics identified by Roman, numerals, the first of which being Roman numeral I, is as follows:

> “I. The Court erred in giving instructions number 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 11 tendered by the Appellees to which the Appellant at the time objected and excepted, which objections are set out herein on pages 31, 32, 33, and 34 and which instructions are set out at pages 28, 29, 30 *129and 31 of this brief, all of which errors are here treated together:”

Following this the appellant cites three abstract legal propositions and authorities therefor.

Under Roman numeral II appellant' treats together “numbers 12 to 16 inclusive of the Motion for New Trial.” This assertion is followed by some generalizations and an attempt to raise a question which was not presented to the trial court in the motion for a new trial.

While we make every attempt to determine all appeals presented to us on the merits, it is still incumbent upon the appellant to attempt to affirmatively show us what error, if any, was committed in the court below. *N. Y., C. & St. L. R. Co.*v. *Merc. Natl. Bk.*(1960), 130 Ind. App. 638, 165 N. E. 2d 382.

The mere recitation of the principles of law without application to the particular case requires us to:

> “. . . search for one or more of the assigned errors to which the doctrine might be applicable, and then analyze the evidence and construe the admitted documents with a view of ascertaining both whether some error has been committed and whether appellant has assigned that particular error on appeal. Such effort is not within the accepted function of the court.” *Ecker*v. *Fuchs*(1959), 129 Ind. App. 555, 567, 159 N. E. 2d 134, 139.

The appellant having failed to present any error for review or question for decision, we have no recourse but to affirm the judgment of the court below.

Judgment affirmed.

Note. — Reported in 180 N. E. 2d 554.
<PAGE>

                                   [LOGO]


July 31, 1997


Mr. Gary Nelson, President
Java Centrale, Inc.
1610 Arden Way #145
Sacramento, CA 95815

Re: Cancellation of Options and Warrants

Dear Gary:

I hereby forfeit all of my current stock options and/or warrants granted to 
me and all other options that I expect to be granted.

I understand and agree that I have no further interest or commitments in 
stock options from Java Centrale, Inc.

The following options have been granted to me:  50,000
                                                ------

The following warrants have been granted to me:  400,000
                                                 -------


Sincerely,

/s/ Rick Shannon

Rick Shannon
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM APPLICABLE
1997 ANNUAL  FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS  OF CORECOMM  INCORPORATED.  THE  SCHEDULE IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                   JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                     DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                            11,783,000
<SECURITIES>                                      62,666,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                     21,149,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (2,106,000)
<INVENTORY>                                        2,882,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   7,147,000
<PP&E>                                           178,231,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                   (49,780,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   397,276,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             30,959,000
<BONDS>                                          200,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                      0
<PREFERRED>                                                0
<COMMON>                                             136,000
<OTHER-SE>                                       156,725,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     397,276,000
<SALES>                                           16,612,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 148,494,000
<CGS>                                             19,089,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     34,038,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  71,271,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                19,400,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      145,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                       2,159,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (2,014,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   (3,326,000)
<CHANGES>                                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (5,340,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                           (.40)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           (.40)


</TABLE>
H. R. 1402

One Hundred Tenth Congress

of the

United States of America 

AT THE FIRST SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday, 

the fourth day of January, two thousand and seven 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 320 South 

Lecanto Highway in Lecanto, Florida, as the ‘‘Sergeant Dennis J. Flanagan Lecanto 

Post Office Building’’.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SERGEANT DENNIS J. FLANAGAN LECANTO POST OFFICE 

BUILDING. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 320 South Lecanto Highway in Lecanto, Florida, 

shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Sergeant Dennis J. Flanagan 

Lecanto Post Office Building’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Sergeant Dennis J. Flanagan Lecanto Post Office Building’’.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
#### Brown *v.*Jones.

[No. 19,472.

Filed April 2, 1962.]

*248
      *Berry, Kineade & Allen,*of Terre Haute, for appellant.

*Jerry W. Jones,*of Indianapolis, for appellee.

Ryan, C. J.

This action was brought by the appellant to recover damages for alleged personal injuries arising out of a motor vehicle collision between a car driven by the appellant and one driven by the appellee. Trial was had by a jury, which returned a verdict for the appellee and against the appellant, who was the plaintiff. Consistent judgment was rendered thereon, and the appellant’s motion for a new trial was overruled, which appellant now assigns as error in this court. The only specification of error contained in the motion for a new trial is that the verdict is contrary to law.

A verdict is contrary to law if the undisputed evidence in the case entitles the one who has the burden of proof to a verdict which has been denied him. In determining this question we consider only the evidence most favorable to the appellee, to*249gether with all reasonable inferences which may be drawn therefrom, and further it is only where the evidence is without conflict and leads to but one com elusion and where an opposite conclusion has been reached that such decision will be set aside as being contrary to law. *Hinds, Executor etc.*v. *McNair et al.*(1955), 235 Ind. 34, 129 N. E. 2d 553; *Pokraka*v. *Lummus Co.*(1952), 230 Ind. 523, 104 N. E. 2d 669.

A recitation of the evidence adduced at the trial in this particular case would not particularly serve any useful purpose. There was a conflict in the evidence, as for example there was testimony that the appellee was driving his car between forty (40) and fifty (50) miles per hour, and also testimony that he was driving between twenty (20) and twenty-five (25) miles per hour. There was also some conflict in the evidence as to whether the appellee could have seen appellant’s car from a distance of five hundred (500) feet or from a distance of two hundred (200) feet before the accident.

Not being constrained to hold under the evidence that only one conclusion could be reached, the judgment is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Ax, Cooper, and Myers, JJ., concur.

Note. — Reported in 181 N. E. 2d 258.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Corporate Fraud Accountability Act of 2002 (18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted), James W. Benson, Chief Executive Officer of
SpaceDev, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certifies that, to the best of their
knowledge:

         1. the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2002 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or
78o(d)); and

         2. the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company. Dated: March 19, 2003


                                            /s/ James W. Benson
                                            James W. Benson
                                            CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          19,978
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   13,805
<ALLOWANCES>                                       566
<INVENTORY>                                     17,492
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                58,264
<PP&E>                                         202,626
<DEPRECIATION>                                  47,095
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 236,487
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           54,826
<BONDS>                                              0<F1>
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           22,182
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     (18,367)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   236,487
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               328,089
<CGS>                                          253,428
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  315,932
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                16,993
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0<F1>
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,989
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,168
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,168
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,168
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>NOT SEPARATELY IDENTIFIED IN THE CURRENT FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OR
ACCOMPANYING NOTES THERETO.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
LIEUTENANT GENERAL JOHN A. SAMFORDJohn Alexander Samford was born at Hagerman, N.M., in 1905. He graduated from high school in 1922 and then spent one year at Columbia College, New York City. In 1924 he received a senatorial appointment to the U.S. Military Academy. He graduated in 1928, 131st in a class of 260. 

Second Lieutenant Samford's first assignment was that of a student officer at Brooks Field, Texas. In 1929 he received his Pilot Wings at Kelly Field and today is rated a command pilot. 

Lieutenant Samford's first assignment after Kelly Field was Fort Crockett located at Galveston, Texas. In 1930 he returned to Kelly Field where he served as a flying instructor. In 1934 he was ordered to an Engineering and Armament School at Chanute Field, Ill. From 1935 until 1942 he held various assignments in Panama, Virginia, Louisiana and Florida. 

Colonel Samford was assistant chief of staff, G-1, Headquarters Third Air Force, in Tampa, Fla., when appointed chief of staff of the VIII Air Force Composite Command located in Northern Ireland. 

In 1943 Colonel Samford was appointed deputy chief of staff of the Eighth Air Force, and later chief of staff of the VIII Bomber Command. 

In 1944 Colonel Samford was promoted to brigadier general and appointed chief of staff of the Eighth Air Force. In October 1944 he was appointed deputy assistant chief of staff, A-2, Headquarters U.S. Army Air Forces. 

In January l947 Brigadier General Samford was appointed commander, 24th Composite Wing which soon thereafter became the Antilles Air Division of the Caribbean Air Command. 

In May 1949 Brigadier General Samford was appointed commandant of the Air Command and Staff School. He was promoted to major general in 1950 and held a brief appointment as commandant of the Air War College before being appointed director of intelligence of the U.S. Air Force. 

In November 1956 Major General Samford was appointed director of the National Security Agency and promoted to lieutenant general.