alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY As Trustee on Behalf of Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc., Trust 2006-HE6, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-HE6 and/or Mers as Appropriate v. Nichelle R. CARTER.

No. 2011-C-0392.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 8, 2011.

In re Carter, Nichelle R.; —Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Charles, 29th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 68,416; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 10-CA-663.

Denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          62,925
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,343,891
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (163,512)
<INVENTORY>                                  3,451,698
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,231,655
<PP&E>                                       1,012,426
<DEPRECIATION>                               (182,057)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,951,085
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,718,277
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     3,971,720
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,355,243)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,951,085
<SALES>                                     11,378,916
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            11,378,916
<CGS>                                        7,530,270
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               11,057,820
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (11,447)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             261,376
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 71,167
<INCOME-TAX>                                    16,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            321,096
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    55,167
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .01
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          11,412
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          28,655
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                38,270
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                  1,604,675
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                      2,154,509
<ALLOWANCE>                                      7,161
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,981,244
<DEPOSITS>                                   2,162,682
<SHORT-TERM>                                 1,267,474
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             14,870
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           30,584
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           339
<OTHER-SE>                                     505,295
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               3,981,244
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 80,681
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               73,013
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                 3,707
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               157,401
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              66,899
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             114,090
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           43,311
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    2,503
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                               2,950
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 39,937
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 10,829
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       4,145
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  1,985
<CHANGES>                                          469
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,691
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.04
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    1.91
<LOANS-NON>                                      7,933
<LOANS-PAST>                                     7,860
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                    203
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 4,766
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      151
<RECOVERIES>                                        43
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                7,161
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             7,161
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          6,701


</TABLE>
#### Nathaniel DAVIS v. TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Joy Aucoin, and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company.

No. 2011-C-0236.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 25, 2011.

In re Davis, Nathaniel; —Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Ascension, 23rd Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 76,806; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 CA 1255.

Denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                 DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                      JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                                 24,058
<SECURITIES>                                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                                          24,745
<ALLOWANCES>                                              792
<INVENTORY>                                           153,301
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                      211,220
<PP&E>                                                173,080
<DEPRECIATION>                                         46,086
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                        343,857
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                  54,639
<BONDS>                                                90,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                       0
<PREFERRED>                                                 0
<COMMON>                                               17,571
<OTHER-SE>                                            145,093
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                          343,857
<SALES>                                               167,154
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                      167,154
<CGS>                                                  89,684
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                         165,625
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                            0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                      3,151
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                       (1,622)
<INCOME-TAX>                                            (634)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                     (988)
<DISCONTINUED>                                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                             0
<CHANGES>                                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                            (988)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          (0.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          (0.06)


</TABLE>
#### LANDRY’S SEAFOOD HOUSE-NEW ORLEANS, INC. v. The BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF the ORLEANS LEVEE DISTRICT.

No. 2011-C-0225.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 25, 2011.

In re Board of Commissioners of the Orleans Levee District; —Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. B, No. 06-05334; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-CA-1052.

Denied.
exv10w7







	 	 	 	 	 



Exhibit 10.7




FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE PETROQUEST ENERGY, INC. 

ANNUAL CASH BONUS PLAN





     WHEREAS the Board of Directors of PetroQuest Energy Inc (“the Company”) previously established
the PetroQuest Energy, Inc. Annual Cash Bonus Plan (the “Plan”); and



     WHEREAS the Company desires to amend the Plan for the purposes of Section 409A of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and the rules, notices and regulations thereunder (the “Code”).



     NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended effective as of December 31, 2008 as follows:




	 	1.	 	The “PAYMENT” section of the Plan shall be amended in its entirety as follows:
	 
	 	 	 	“Actual Awarded Amounts will be paid as soon as possible after such awards are determined by
the Committee but in no event later than March 15 after the end of the Plan Year for which
the Actual Awarded Amount is made.”
	 
	 	2.	 	The first paragraph of “CHANGE-IN-CONTROL” section of the Plan shall be amended
in its entirety as follows:
	 
	 	 	 	“Notwithstanding any contrary provision in the Plan, in the event of a Change in Control (as
defined below) each Participant, who is employed on the date of the Change in Control, shall
receive the Participant’s target Bonus Amount on Exhibit A prorated for the Plan
Year in which the Change in Control occurs to be paid as soon as administratively feasible
but in no event later than two and a half months after the Change in Control occurs”
	 
	 	3.	 	The third paragraph of the “MISCELLANEOUS PLAN PROVISIONS” section of the Plan
shall be amended to replace the term “Bonus Amounts” with the term “Actual Awarded
Amounts”.
	 
	 	4.	 	The “MISCELLANEOUS PLAN PROVISIONS” section of the Plan shall be amended to add
the following new paragraphs at the end thereof:
	 
	 	 	 	This Plan and the payments hereunder are intended to be exempt from the requirements of
Section 409A of the Code, and this Plan shall be interpreted and construed in accordance
with the applicable requirements to be exempt from, and to the extent necessary, comply with
Code Section 409A, including, without limitation, using the defined terms from Code Section
409A.














 











     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has executed this First Amendment to the PetroQuest Energy,
Inc. Annual Cash Bonus Plan effective as of December 31, 2008.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	By:  	       /s/ Daniel G. Fournerat
 	 
	 	 	Name:  	Daniel G. Fournerat, Executive Vice President and General Counsel 	 
	 	Date: December 31, 2008 	 
	 




2
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

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

 September 21, 2016

p0914

Order 

Clerk

September 21, 2016

153649 & (80)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee/

Cross-Appellant,

v SC: 153649

COA: 323170

Ionia CC: 2012-015535-FH

MARTI J. SCHRAUBEN,

Defendant-Appellant/

Cross-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 26, 2016 

judgment of the Court of Appeals and the application for leave to appeal as crossappellant are considered, and they are DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the 

questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 156 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for the payment of 

dependency and indemnity compensation to the survivors of former prisoners of war who died on or before September 30, 1999, under the 

same eligibility conditions as apply to payment of dependency and indemnity compensation to the survivors of former prisoners of war who die 

after that date. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 4, 2007 

Mr. HOLDEN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for the 

payment of dependency and indemnity compensation to 

the survivors of former prisoners of war who died on 

or before September 30, 1999, under the same eligibility 

conditions as apply to payment of dependency and indemnity compensation to the survivors of former prisoners of war who die after that date. 

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


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with BILLS
2 

•HR 156 IH

1 That section 1318(b)(3) of title 38, United States 

2 Code, is amended by striking ‘‘who died after September 

3 30, 1999,’’. 

Æ 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with BILLS
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

In the Interest of N.C., a Child

No. 06-21-00064-CV

Appeal from the 71st District Court of 

Harrison County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 19-

1019). Memorandum Opinion delivered by 

Chief Justice Morriss, Justice Burgess and 

Justice Stevens participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find that the appeal should be dismissed 

for want of jurisdiction. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal.

We note that the appellant has adequately indicated his inability to pay costs of appeal. 

Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED SEPTEMBER 2, 2021

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-1-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           3,052
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          10,187
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                43,150
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    530,854
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                        589,529
<ALLOWANCE>                                      3,612
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,209,466
<DEPOSITS>                                     670,547
<SHORT-TERM>                                   440,911
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             13,334
<LONG-TERM>                                     29,732
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            9,494
<PREFERRED>                                     15,281
<COMMON>                                            44
<OTHER-SE>                                      30,123
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               1,209,466
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 20,832
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                4,175
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                11,646
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                36,653
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              18,205
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              29,754
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            6,899
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      325
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                               1,641
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  8,132
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,493
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       1,493
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       291
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.05
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    1.38
<LOANS-NON>                                      5,866
<LOANS-PAST>                                     4,668
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   422
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  6,921
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 3,602
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      322
<RECOVERIES>                                         7
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                3,612
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             3,612
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          3,612
        

</TABLE>
#### CITY OF ORLANDO, Appellant, v. Timothy DAVIS, Appellee.

No. 1D10-3432.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Nov. 22, 2010.

Karen Cullen and Meredith Barrios of Broussard & Cullen, P.A., Orlando, for Appellant.

Bill McCabe, Longwood, and Frederic M. Schott, Orlando, for Appellee.

*154PER CURIAM.

Because Claimant conceded at the hearing before the Judge of Compensation Claims that all benefits had been paid under an April 28, 2000, date of accident, and that it would be appropriate to award all benefits under that date of accident, we strike the references to an August 1, 2005, compensable accident from the final order. In all other respects, the final order is AFFIRMED.

VAN NORTWICK, LEWIS, and CLARK, JJ., concur.
#### Tex. & Pac. R’y Co. v. C. B. Rains.

(No. 3367.)

June 10, 1885.

Appeal from Palo Pinto County.

Opinion by

Will-son, J.

§ 752. *Appeal bond from justice's court; misdescription of judgment in.*On *September*27, 1884, Rains recovered judgment against appellant in justice’s court, from which appellant appealed to the county court, and gave an appeal bond in which the judgment was described as one rendered *November*27, 1884. On motion of appellee the appeal was dismissed because of this misdescription. *Held:*It was not necessary to state the *date*of the judgment, as it was otherwise sufficiently described to identify it, but it having been stated, and stated incorrectly, the judgment was misdescribed, and such misdescription cannot be considered a mere clerical mistake, and could not be amended or cured by giving a new bond. [W. & W. Con. Rep. §§ 383, 491, 492, 811; ante, § 402.]

Affirmed.
**ARTICLES
      OF AMENDMENT**


**OF**


**TARGETED
      GENETICS CORPORATION**




The
      following Articles of Amendment are executed by Targeted Genetics Corporation,
      a
      Washington corporation:




1. The
      name
      of the corporation is Targeted Genetics Corporation.




2. Subsection
      4.1 of the Restated Articles of Incorporation of the corporation is amended
      to
      read as follows:




**“4.1**  **Authorized
      Capital**




The
      total
      authorized stock of this corporation shall consist of 30,000,000 shares of
      Common Stock, par value $.01 per share, and 600,000 shares of Preferred Stock,
      par value $.01 per share.”




3. The
      amendment does not provide for the exchange, reclassification or cancelled
      of
      issued shares.




4. The
      date
      the amendment was adopted by the shareholders of the corporation is May 17,
      2007.




5. The
      amendment was duly adopted by the shareholders of the corporation in accordance
      with the provisions of RCW 23B.10.030 and RCW 23B.10.040.




These
      Articles of Amendment are executed by the corporation by its duly authorized
      officer.




Dated: May
      17, 2007




TARGETED
              GENETICS
              CORPORATIONBy
            /as/ H. STEWART PARKERH.
              Stewart ParkerPresident
              and Chief Executive Officer
#### Ngozi EKECHI, Appellant, v. FIRST AMERICA/FIRST STUDENT and Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc., Appellees.

No. 1D10-2465.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Dec. 8, 2010.

Ngozi Ekechi, pro se, Appellant.

Stephen M. Armstrong, Jacksonville, for Appellees.

PER CURIAM.

We vacate in part the order on appeal, by striking the following language from the decretal portion: “Interest will accrue on any unpaid sum at the rate allowed by statute. For all of which let execution issue.” *See Jackson v. Computer Science Raytheon,*36 So.3d 754, 757 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (noting that section 440.15(12), Florida Statutes (relating to employee’s repayment of indemnity benefits), does not impose interest on unpaid principle); *see also*§ 440.25(4)(e), Florida Statutes (2008)(lim-iting JCC’s authority to entry of “compensation order” — rather than judgment, as defined by section 55.01(1), Florida Statutes (2008)). Because we find no merit in Claimant’s arguments for reversal of the remainder of the order, we AFFIRM the order as modified. *See Lawrence v. Aquarius Sales & Serv., Inc.,*30 So.3d 690 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (modifying order by striking JCC’s findings on issue not pled below, and affirming as modified); *Orkin Pest Control (Rollins, Inc.) v. Dykes,*464 So.2d 1299, 1300 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (modifying and affirming order of deputy commissioner where commissioner granted remedy to parties not “actually before” him).

WOLF, KAHN, and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.
#### Charles MONINGER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D08-1429.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Aug. 11, 2010.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Anthony Calvello, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Melanie Dale Surber, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Based on the authority of *State v. Montgomery,*39 So.3d 252 (Fla.2010), and this Court’s recent opinion in *Singh v. State,*36 So.3d 848 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010), we affirm the trial court’s decision as it relates to the manner in which it instructed the jury without further discussion.

*Affirmed.*

FARMER, HAZOURI and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.