alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.1


 


Description of the Third Extension to the Amended and Restated $250 Million Secured Revolving Credit Agreement


 


November 19, 2021


 


Pursuant
to the terms of the Amended and Restated $250 million secured Revolving Credit Agreement dated as of November 19, 2018, between Consumers
Energy Company and The Bank of Nova Scotia, the parties have all agreed, effective November 19, 2021, to extend the Termination Date (as
defined therein) for a period of one year to November 19, 2023.
i i i i i i

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Nos. 04-09-00664-CR & 04-09-00665-CR

Charles PENA,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 7, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court Nos. 292745 & 292744

Honorable Brenda Chapman, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Delivered and Filed: December 16, 2009

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

The trial court imposed sentence on August 5, 2009, and appellant did not file a timely

motion for new trial. The deadline for filing a notice of appeal was therefore due September 5, 2009.

See TEX.R.APP. P. 26.2(a)(1). The notice of appeal was not filed until September 21, 2009, and the

clerk’s record shows the notice of appeal was not deposited in the mail before the last day for filing.
04-09-00664-CR & 04-09-00665-CR

-2-

In fact, the notice of appeal shows it was not completed until September 5, 2009, the day after it was

due. No motion for extension of time to file the notice of appeal was filed. See TEX.R.APP. P. 26.3.

On November 3, 2009, we ordered appellant to show why this appeal should not be dismissed

for want of jurisdiction. On December 3, 2009, appellant filed a response in which he admits the

notice of appeal was untimely, and for the first time seeks an extension of time to file the notice of

appeal. A motion to extend time to file a notice of appeal must be filed in this court within fifteen

days after the deadline for filing the notice of appeal. TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3. Here, the motion to

extend time to file the notice of appeal had to be filed on or before September 21, 2009, but was not

filed until December 3, 2009. See id. 

Because neither the notice of appeal nor the motion to extend time to file the notice of appeal

was timely filed, we lack jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. See Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519,

522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996);see also Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals, 802 S.W.2d 241 (Tex. Crim.

App. 1991) (explaining that writ of habeas corpus pursuant to article 11.07 of the Texas Code of

Criminal Procedure governs out-of-time appeals from felony convictions); see also TEX.R. APP. P.

26.3. Accordingly, we dismiss the motion for extension of time and the appeal for want of

jurisdiction. 

PER CURIAM

Do not publish
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 15


                         ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF INDEPENDENT
                          CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
                REGARDING INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS' REVIEW REPORT


The Board of Directors
Northfield Laboratories Inc.:

With respect to registration statements (Nos. 33-84264, 333-15877, 333-51681,
333-79579 and 333-102672) on Form S-8 and the registration statement (No.
333-106615) on Form S-3 of Northfield Laboratories Inc., we acknowledge our
awareness of the use therein of our report dated September 24, 2003 related to
our review of interim financial information.

Pursuant to Rule 436( C ) under the Securities Act of 1933, such report is not
considered to be a part of a registration statement prepared or certified by an
accountant or a report prepared or certified by an accountant within the meaning
of sections 7 and 11 of the Act.

Very truly yours,




/s/ KPMG LLP

Chicago, Illinois
October 14, 2003
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7150 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7150

 To direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to continue to apply the 
  rule entitled ``Allowing Certain H-4 Dependent Spouses to Apply for 
          Employment Authorization'', and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 16, 2018

Ms. Eshoo (for herself and Ms. Lofgren) introduced the following bill; 
          which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to continue to apply the 
  rule entitled ``Allowing Certain H-4 Dependent Spouses to Apply for 
          Employment Authorization'', and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``H-4 Employment Protection Act of 
2018''.

SEC. 2. EMPLOYMENT AUTHORIZATION FOR CERTAIN SPOUSES OF H-1B 
              NONIMMIGRANTS.

    The Secretary of Homeland Security may not amend or repeal the rule 
entitled ``Allowing Certain H-4 Dependent Spouses to Apply for 
Employment Authorization'' (8 C.F.R. 214, 275), and shall continue to 
apply such rule as in effect on May 26, 2015.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-6712

JONATHAN JAMES, 

 Petitioner - Appellant, 

 v. 

GEORGE T. HAGAN, Warden, Allendale Correctional Institution, 

 Respondent - Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Beaufort. Cameron McGowan Currie, District 

Judge. (9:08-cv-01106-CMC) 

Submitted: August 26, 2009 Decided: September 3, 2009 

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit 

Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Jonathan James, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy 

Assistant Attorney General, Samuel Creighton Waters, Assistant 

Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Jonathan James seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The 

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues 

a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). A prisoner satisfies this 

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find 

that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district 

court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural 

ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El 

v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 

U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th 

Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and 

conclude that James has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss 

the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts 

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process. 

DISMISSED
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 31, 2021

No. 04-21-00340-CR

EX PARTE DAVID RAMIREZ-HERNANDEZ,

From the 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas

Trial Court No. 21-1135-CV-C

Honorable William D. Old III, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The record in this habeas corpus appeal was complete August 30, 2021. 

We order appellant’s brief due September 20, 2021. See TEX. R. APP. P. 31.1; 4th Tex. App. 

(San Antonio) Loc. R. 8.2. The brief of the State is due within 20 days after the date 

appellant’s brief is filed. Id. A reply brief, if any, must be filed within 10 days after the State’s 

brief is filed. Id.

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

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

court on this 31st day of August, 2021.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Rontrell WISE.

No. 2010-KO-1324.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 7, 2011.

In re Wise, Rontrell; —Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Assumption, 23rd Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 07-19; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009 EA 1753.

Denied.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 195 (Friday, October 8, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 62414]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-25025]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

[Docket No. FR-5375-N-39]


Federal Property Suitable as Facilities To Assist the Homeless

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and 
Development, HUD.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This Notice identifies unutilized, underutilized, excess, and 
surplus Federal property reviewed by HUD for suitability for possible 
use to assist the homeless.

DATES: Effective Date: October 8, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathy Ezzell, Department of Housing 
and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 7262, Washington, 
DC 20410; telephone (202) 708-1234; TTY number for the hearing- and 
speech-impaired (202) 708-2565, (these telephone numbers are not toll-
free), or call the toll-free Title V information line at 800-927-7588.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with the December 12, 1988 
court order in National Coalition for the Homeless v. Veterans 
Administration, No. 88-2503-OG (D.D.C.), HUD publishes a Notice, on a 
weekly basis, identifying unutilized, underutilized, excess and surplus 
Federal buildings and real property that HUD has reviewed for 
suitability for use to assist the homeless. Today's Notice is for the 
purpose of announcing that no additional properties have been 
determined suitable or unsuitable this week.

    Dated: September 30, 2010.
Mark R. Johnston,
 Deputy Assistant Secretary for Special Needs.
[FR Doc. 2010-25025 Filed 10-7-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
#### George Mitchell MOORE *v.*STATE of Arkansas

CR 98-478

966 S.W.2d 266

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Opinion delivered May 14, 1998

*John R. Irwin,*for appellant.

*Winston Bryant,*Att’y Gen., by: *Mac Golden,*Asst. Att’y Gen., for appellee.

Per Curiam.

George Mitchell Moore, by his attorney, has filed a motion to file belated appeal, which we will treat as a motion for rule on the clerk.

*273The motion admits that the record was not timely filed and that it was no fault of the appellant.

This court has held that we will grant a motion for rule on the clerk when the attorney admits that the record was not timely filed due to an error on his part. *See, e.g., Tarry v. State,*288 Ark. 172, 702 S.W.2d 804 (1986). Here, the attorney does not admit fault on his part. We have held that a statement that it was someone else’s fault or no one’s fault will not suffice. *Clark v. State,*289 Ark. 382, 711 S.W.2d 162 (1986). Therefore, appellant’s motion must be denied.

The appellant’s attorney shall file within thirty days from the date of this per curiam a motion and affidavit in this case accepting full responsibility for not timely filing the transcript, and upon filing same, the motion will be granted and a copy of the opinion will be forwarded to the Committee on Professional Conduct.

The present motion for rule on the clerk is denied.
#### Darrell EDDIE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D10-1906.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 6, 2010.

Darrell Eddie, in proper person.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before RAMIREZ, C.J., and GERSTEN and SALTER, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *See Morgan v. State,*991 So.2d 835, 839-41 (Fla.2008).
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATIONS

I,
Garry J. Welsh, certify that:

(1)   I
have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Gevity HR, 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:



(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 (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



|Dated: March 17, 2008 |  | /s/GARRY J. WELSHGarry J. Welsh Interim Chief Executive Officer
|--------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------

---



QuickLinks
#### Beverly Ann CASH v. MOREHOUSE PARISH OFFICE OF FAMILY SUPPORT.

No. 2010-CC-2214.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 19, 2010.

In re Cash, Beverly Ann; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Morehouse, 4th Judicial District Court Div. H, No. 2002-10.

Denied.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL
OFFICER

PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002


As of the date hereof, I, Eric Borrmann, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the
Annual Report of Plumtree Software, Inc. on Form 10-K for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003 fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such
Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material
respects the financial condition and results of operations of
Plumtree Software, Inc.

A signed original of this written statement
required by Section 906 has been provided by Plumtree
Software, Inc. and will be retained by Plumtree Software, Inc.
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.



| |                               
| | ------------------------------
| | By: /s/ Eric Borrmann         
| |                               
|
| | Name: Eric Borrmann           
| |                               
|
| | Title: Chief Financial Officer
| |                               
|
| | Date: March 11, 2004          
| |                               

44
#### Richard BUTTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D08-4778.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

July 7, 2010.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 27, 2010.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and John M. Conway, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Melynda L. Melear, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the order denying appellant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel following this court’s remand for an evi-dentiary hearing in *Button v. State,*941 So.2d 531 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). After holding a hearing, the court determined that counsel made a reasonable strategic decision not to further pursue certain evidence. We need not decide whether counsel provided reasonably competent assistance or whether the alleged tactical decision was reasonable.

> [Tjhere is no reason for a court deciding an ineffective assistance claim ... even to address both components of the inquiry if the defendant makes an insufficient showing on one.... If it is easier to *78dispose of an ineffectiveness claim on the ground of lack of sufficient prejudice, which we expect will often be so, that course should be followed.

*Strickland v. Washington,*466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

Having the benefit of a more complete record in this appeal, we conclude that the evidence of appellant’s guilt was overwhelming. Confidence in the outcome of the trial is not undermined. Appellant did not establish prejudice under *Strickland,*and is not entitled to postconviction relief.

Affirmed.

GROSS, C.J., POLEN and CIKLIN, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-1971

THE ESTATE OF PATRICIA BLALOCK WARD; JOSEPH M. WARD,

Plaintiffs – Appellants,

v.

TRANS UNION CORPORATION,

Defendant – Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. David W. Daniel, Magistrate Judge. (4:04-cv-00088-DAN)

Submitted: January 26, 2009 Decided: February 17, 2009

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

The Estate of Patricia Blalock Ward, Joseph M. Ward, Appellants Pro Se. Paul L. Myers, STRASBURGER & PRICE, LLP, Frisco, Texas; Joseph Walter Williford, YOUNG, MOORE & HENDERSON, PA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:

The Estate of Patricia Blalock Ward and Joseph M. Ward

appeal the district court’s judgment in favor of Trans Union

Corporation on Appellants’ claims under the Fair Credit

Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681-1681(u) (2006), and state law

claims for defamation, interference with contractual relations,

and false light invasion of privacy. We have reviewed the

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the

district court’s judgment. See Estate of Ward v. Trans Union

Corp. , No. 4:04-cv-00088-DAN (E.D.N.C. Aug. 30, 2007). We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### Otis R. McKINLEY v. Warden Lynn COOPER; Avoyelles Correctional Center.

No. 2010-CI-0017.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 17, 2010.

In re McKinley, Otis R.; —Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. 0, No. 553,225; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009 CA 0537.

Denied.
CITICORP MORTGAGE, INC.                                        FINANCIAL CONTROL

12855 N. OUTER FORTY DRIVE
MS 822
ST. LOUIS, MO 63141


As of and for the year ended  December 31,  1997,  Citicorp  Mortgage,  Inc. (an
indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Citicorp) and subsidiaries (the Company) has
complied,  in all material  respects  with the minimum  servicing  standards set
forth  in  the  Mortgage  Bankers   Association  of  America's   UNIFORM  SINGLE
ATTESTATION FOR MORTGAGE  BANKERS.  As of and for this same period,  the Company
had in effect  fidelity bond and errors and omissions  policies in the amount of
$274 million.

Very truly yours,




CITICORP MORTGAGE, INC.


By:  /s/  David B. Lowman
          David B. Lowman, Managing Director-
          Mortgage Services

By  /s/   Jim B. Levites           3-4-98
          Jim B. Levites, Managing Director-
          Default Management

By  /s/   Richard G. Thornberry     3-9-98
          Richard G. Thornberry President/Chief Operating Officer

By /s/    Carl Levinson
          Carl L. Levinson, Chairman/Chief Executive Officer


February 20, 1998
#### STATE ex rel. Cesar ROCA, Sr. v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2010-KH-0438.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 18, 2011.

In re Roca Sr., Cesar; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 01-1422; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 08-WR-907.

Denied.
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 19

- 00189

- CV

I N THE E STATE OF G US W. R IEFLER

, J R

., D ECEASED §

§

§

§ On Appeal from the County Court at

Law

of Cooke County ( PR

- 17203

- 1 )

December 3, 2020

Memorandum Opinion by Justice

Birdwell

JUDGMENT

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

was error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial

court is reversed

, and we render a judgment that Danny Joe Jonas Jr. tak e nothing

.

It is further ordered that appellee Danny Joe Jonas Jr. shall pay all of the costs

of this appeal, for which let execution issue.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Wade Birdwell

Justice Wade Birdwell
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           2,670
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   11,961
<ALLOWANCES>                                       438
<INVENTORY>                                      6,200
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                18,128
<PP&E>                                          28,129
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,835
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 133,788
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,247
<BONDS>                                         82,557
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            10
<OTHER-SE>                                      41,153
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   133,788
<SALES>                                         56,864
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                56,864
<CGS>                                           40,413
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   40,413
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 9,934
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   676
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,847
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,006)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (330)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (676)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (676)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.68)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.68)
        

</TABLE>
#### Kevis McCRAY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D10-164.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Nov. 24, 2010.

Kevis McCray, Daytona Beach, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

*Affirmed. See Edwards v. State,*35 So.3d 121 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010).

WARNER, POLEN and FARMER, JJ., concur.