alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 192 (Tuesday, October 5, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 61511]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-25003]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Indian Affairs


Indian Gaming

AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of Approved Tribal-State Class III Gaming Compact.

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

SUMMARY: This notice publishes an extension of Gaming Compact between 
the Rosebud Sioux Tribe and the State of South Dakota.

DATES: Effective Date: October 5, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paula L. Hart, Director, Office of 
Indian Gaming, Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary--Policy and 
Economic Development, Washington, DC 20240, (202) 219-4066.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under section 11 of the Indian Gaming 
Regulatory Act of 1988 (IGRA), Public Law 100-497, 25 U.S.C. 2710, the 
Secretary of the Interior shall publish in the Federal Register notice 
of approved Tribal-State compacts for the purpose of engaging in Class 
III gaming activities on Indian lands. This amendment allows for the 
extension of the current Tribal-State Compact until February 28, 2011.

    Dated: September 17, 2010.
Paul Tsosie,
Chief of Staff to the Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2010-25003 Filed 10-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-4N-P
**Exhibit 32**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. § 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30,2008 (the “Report”) of TF Financial Corporation (the “Company”) as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, we, Kent C. Lufkin,President and Chief Executive Officer, and Dennis R. Stewart, Executive VicePresident and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Accounting Officer), herebycertify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1) TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2) Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial position and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
|   |                   |   | /s/ Kent C. Lufkin                                  |
|--------|------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------|
| Date:  | November 13, 2008 |   | Kent C. Lufkin                                      |
|   |                   |   | President and CEO                                   |
|   |                   |   | (Principal Executive Officer)                       |
|   |                   |   |                                                |
|   |                   |   |                                                |
|   |                   |   | /s/ Dennis R. Stewart                               |
| Date:  | November 13, 2008 |   | Dennis R. Stewart                                   |
|   |                   |   | Executive Vice President and                        |
|   |                   |   | Chief Financial Officer                             |
|   |                   |   | (Principal Financial & Accounting Officer) |

 

----
#### Mickey ATKINSON, et al. v. LAMMICO INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.

No. 2011-C-1156.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 16, 2011.

In re Health Care Indemnity, Inc.; Young M.D., Martin C.; — Defendant(s); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Rapides, 9th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 238,842; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 11-13.

Denied.
exv10w57






Exhibit 10.57




AMENDING AGREEMENT




     THIS AGREEMENT made effective as of April 10, 2008 (the “Effective Date”) between
NUCRYST Pharmaceuticals Corp., a corporation incorporated under the laws of the Province of Alberta
(the “Company”) and Thomas E. Gardner (the “Participant”).



     WHEREAS the Company and the Participant are parties to the stock option award agreement made
as of the Effective Date (the “Award Agreement”); and



     AND WHEREAS the Company and the Participant wish to amend the Award Agreement as set forth
herein.



     NOW THEREFORE THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSES that for good and valuable consideration, the receipt
and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged by the parties, the parties hereto agree as
follows:




	1.	 	The Award Agreement is hereby amended as follows:
	 
		 	(a) The term “Employment Agreement” in the Award Agreement means the employment agreement
between the Company and the Participant dated as of August 21, 2007, as assigned by the
Company to NUCRYST Pharmaceuticals Inc. as of August 22, 2007 and as amended, restated or
supplemented from time to time; and
	 
		 	(b) Sections 6 and 7 of the Award Agreement are amended by deleting the following:
“(relating to terminations without cause or non-extension of the Employment Agreement by the
Company)” and substituting the following: “(relating to terminations without cause or
non-extension of the Employment Agreement by the Company or any subsidiary, associate or
affiliate thereof)”.
	 
	2.	 	The parties each covenant that they will do all things and execute all such further documents
and assurances required to more fully effect the intent of this Agreement.
	 
	3.	 	This Agreement shall enure to the benefit of and be binding upon the parties hereto and their
respective heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns.
	 
	4.	 	This Agreement shall be governed by and construed and interpreted in accordance with the laws
of the Province of Alberta and the laws of Canada applicable therein, and the parties hereto
irrevocably attorn to the jurisdiction of the courts of the Province of Alberta.
	 
	5.	 	This Agreement may be signed in counterparts and each counterpart constitutes an original
document and the counterparts, taken together, constitute one and the same instrument.
Delivery of counterparts may be made by facsimile or PDF transmission.
	 
	 	 	IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have executed this Agreement as of the Effective Date.







	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 NUCRYST Pharmaceuticals Corp.	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 

	 	Per:	 	/s/ Carol L. Amelio 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	Name:
	 	Carol L. Amelio
	 	 
	 	 

Thomas E. Gardner
	 	 
	 

	 	Title:	 	Vice President,
General
Counsel
 and Corporate Secretary
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Somsak Chivavibul,
certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period
covered by this report on Form 10-K of Navient Student Loan Trust 2014-1 (the Exchange Act periodic reports);

2. Based on my
knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do 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, all of the distribution, servicing
and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statements required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as
disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer and administrator have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreement and administration agreement, as applicable, in all material respects; and

5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on
assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this
report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K. In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information
provided to me by the following unaffiliated party: Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as indenture trustee.

[Signature Page Follows]



---

|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|Date: March 30, 2016                 
|                                     
|/s/ SOMSAK CHIVAVIBUL                
|Somsak Chivavibul                    
|President and Chief Financial Officer
|(Senior Securitization Officer)      
|Navient Funding, LLC
Exhibit 23.2















Consent Of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm



Board of Directors and Stockholders

Shore Bancshares, Inc.



We consent to the incorporation by reference
in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-143002, 333-195527, 333-167762, 333-157141 and 333-206110) and on Form S-8
(Nos. 333-105159, 333-134955 and 333-211736) of Shore Bancshares, Inc., of our report dated March 16, 2017, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements of Shore Bancshares, Inc. as of and for the year ended December 31, 2016, which report
appears in Shore Bancshares, Inc.’s Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2017.







/s/ Dixon Hughes Goodman LLP





Baltimore, Maryland

April 9, 2018
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>               5
<MULTIPLIER>            1
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                  DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                           299,042
<SECURITIES>                     100,000
<RECEIVABLES>                  1,679,765
<ALLOWANCES>                      43,197
<INVENTORY>                      589,753
<CURRENT-ASSETS>               2,739,932
<PP&E>                         3,162,445
<DEPRECIATION>                 1,251,855
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                 5,827,846
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>          1,406,898
<BONDS>                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                  0
<PREFERRED>                            0
<COMMON>                          26,674
<OTHER-SE>                     3,211,393
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>   5,827,846
<SALES>                        2,958,977
<TOTAL-REVENUES>               2,958,977
<CGS>                          1,795,958
<TOTAL-COSTS>                  1,795,958
<OTHER-EXPENSES>               1,116,672
<LOSS-PROVISION>                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                35,662
<INCOME-PRETAX>                   85,119
<INCOME-TAX>                       (623)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>               85,742
<DISCONTINUED>                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                        0
<CHANGES>                              0
<NET-INCOME>                      85,742
<EPS-PRIMARY>                       0.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                       0.03


</TABLE>
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: In the Interest of A.C., K.L.C. III and L.C.

Appellate case number: 01-20-00002-CV

Trial court case number: 18CP0096

Trial court: 306th District Court of Galveston County

K.L.C. II, Father, appeals the termination of his parental rights to A.C., K.L.C. 

III, and L.C. Father’s appointed attorney has filed a brief in which she concludes 

that, after a review of the record and pertinent law, the appeal is frivolous and 

without merit. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); In re P.M., 520 

S.W.3d 24, 27 & n.10 (Tex. 2016) (per curiam) (approving use of Anders procedure 

in appeals from termination of parental rights because it “strikes an important 

balance between the defendant’s constitutional right to counsel on appeal and 

counsel’s obligation not to prosecute frivolous appeals”). Father did not file a pro 

se response.

Under Anders, if an appointed attorney concludes after reviewing the record 

and applicable law that the appeal is without merit, he must advise the court, file a 

motion to withdraw, and file a brief discussing any issue that might arguably support 

the appeal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 318 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 2014). The appellate court must then perform an independent 

examination of the record and the law to determine whether appeal is frivolous. See 

Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. The question before us is not who will ultimately prevail 

but instead whether any non-frivolous issue exists. If the court determines that there 

are arguable issues, it must abate the appeal and remand with orders for the trial 

court to appoint new counsel. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 1991).
After examining the record and applicable law, the Court has determined that 

a nonfrivolous issue may exist. For instance, on appeal, the Father could potentially 

bring a nonfrivolous challenge concerning the legal and factual sufficiency of the 

evidence supporting the trial court’s section 161.001(b)(1)(D) finding. See TEX.

FAM. CODE § 161.001(b)(1)(D). Accordingly, the court strikes appellant’s brief, 

grants the motion to withdraw, abates the appeal, and remands the case to the trial 

court for appointment of new counsel. Father’s brief will be due within 30 days after 

new counsel is appointed. 

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: ____/s/ Sherry Radack________

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: ___April 7, 2020___
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 193 (Wednesday, October 6, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61745-61746]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-25097]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER10-2829-000]


Athens Energy, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based 
Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

September 27, 2010.
    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of 
Athens Energy, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with 
an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a 
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future 
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the 
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a 
copy of that document on the Applicant.

[[Page 61746]]

    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with 
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability, is October 18, 2010.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet 
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an 
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the 
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the 
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in 
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in 
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link 
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification 
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with 
any FERC Online service, please e-mail <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#aee8ebfcede1c0c2c7c0cbfddbdedec1dcdaeec8cbdccd80c9c1d8"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5d1b180f1e1233313433380e282d2d322f291d3b382f3e733a322b">[email protected]</span></a> or 
call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-25097 Filed 10-5-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-19-00915-CV

Mohammad Q Mahmood, Appellant

v.

Inamur Rahman, Sabiha Rahman, John Ward, and Susan Ward, Appellees

FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 4 OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY

NO. 16-0124-CPSC1, THE HONORABLE JOHN MCMASTER, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Mohammad Q Mahmood, acting pro se, filed three notices of appeal in 

December 2019, purporting to appeal from a protective order entered by a court in Illinois, a 

judgment signed in March 2018, and a judgment or order that was signed on December 9, 2019.

On January 17, 2020, the Clerk of this Court advised appellant that it appears that 

this Court lacks jurisdiction over this matter because: (i) a protective order entered by a court in 

Illinois is outside this Court’s district boundaries, see Tex. Gov’t Code §§ 22.201(d) (listing 

counties that compose Third Court of Appeals District), .220 (stating that court of appeals has 

appellate jurisdiction of civil cases within district); (ii) the notice of appeal purporting to appeal 

from a judgment that was signed in March 2018 was untimely, see Tex. R. App. P. 26.1 (stating 

deadlines for filing notice of appeal in civil cases); and (iii) the clerk’s record does not contain a

judgment or order that was signed on December 9, 2019, see Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 
2

39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001) (explaining that “general rule, with a few mostly statutory 

exceptions, is that an appeal may be taken only from a final judgment”); McKinnon v. Wallin, 

No. 03-18-00612-CV, 2019 Tex. App. LEXIS 552, at *4 (Tex. App.—Austin Jan. 30, 2019, no 

pet.) (mem. op.) (dismissing appeal because appellant failed to identify final judgment or 

appealable order that would support court’s jurisdiction). The Clerk requested that appellant file 

a response by January 27, 2020, explaining how this Court may exercise jurisdiction over this 

appeal and advised him that the failure to do so would result in the dismissal of this appeal. See

Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a).

To date, appellant has not responded to this Court’s letter, and no supplemental 

clerk’s record has been filed that contains a final judgment or other appealable order to support

this Court’s jurisdiction. Because appellant has failed to demonstrate this Court’s jurisdiction 

over this appeal, we dismiss it for want of jurisdiction. See id.

__________________________________________

Melissa Goodwin, Justice

Before Justices Goodwin, Kelly, and Smith

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: February 5, 2020
#### James BONA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Nos. 4D10-797, 4D10-798.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Dec. 14, 2011.

Fred Haddad of Fred Haddad, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Mitchell A. Egber, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

GERBER, J.

The defendant appeals his judgment and sentence for violating his probation. We affirm the judgment without discussion. However, we reverse the sentence. Although the sentence was legally permissible, the circuit court erred in failing to renew the offer of counsel before sentencing. *See Capitaine v. State,*58 So.3d 438, 439 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (“Sentencing is a critical stage of a criminal proceeding, and a trial court must renew the offer of counsel even if the defendant has previously waived counsel.”) (citation omitted). We remand for resentencing after a renewal of the offer of counsel.

*Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for resentencing.*

TAYLOR and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.
#### In re Edward A. KAPLAN.

No. 2010-B-2112.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 20, 2010.

*263ORDER

Considering the Petition for Interim Suspension for Threat of Harm filed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel, and the response thereto filed by respondent,

IT IS ORDERED that respondent, Edward A. Kaplan, Louisiana Bar Roll number 7622, be and he hereby is suspended from the practice of law on an interim basis pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 19.2, pending further orders of this court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Office of Disciplinary Counsel may seek the appointment of a trustee(s) to protect the interests of respondent’s clients pursuant to the provisions of Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 27, if appropriate.

Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 26(E), this order is effective immediately-

FOR THE COURT:

/s/ Greg Gerard Guidry Justice, Supreme Court of Louisiana
#### Valerie SAPP, Appellant, v. MIAMI-DADE POLICE DEPARTMENT and Miami-Dade County Risk Management, Appellees.

No. 1D12-2387.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Oct. 19, 2012.

Mark L. Zientz of the Law Offices of Mark L. Zientz, P.A., Miami; Mario R. Arango of the Law Offices of De Varona, Arango *&*Weinstein, LLC, Miami, for Appellant.

R.A. Cuevas, Jr., Miami-Dade County Attorney, and Daron S. Fitch, Assistant County Attorney, Miami, for Appellees.

THOMAS, J.

We reverse and remand for the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) to enter an order awarding Claimant employer-paid attorney’s fees in the amount of $45,990.00. *See Sapp v. Miami-Dade Police Dep’t,*82 So.3d 212 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) *(Sapp*I); Fla. Admin. Code R. 60Q-6.124(3)(b); *cf. Smyth v. K-Mart Corp.,*905 So.2d 921 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). Under this court’s remand in *Sapp I,*once the JCC determined that no good cause existed to excuse the self-insured Employer’s failure to comply with Florida Administrative Code Rule 60Q-6.124(3)(b), the JCC had no discretion to reduce the attorney fee award here, as the legal sufficiency of Claimant’s fee petition was not at issue.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

WOLF and CLARK, JJ., concur.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Jason McCOY.

No. 2010-K-2554.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 1, 2011.

In re McCoy, Jason; —Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. C, No. 471-657; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-KA-0306.

Denied.
#### MichaeL FOGLEMAN, et al. v. MEAUX SURFACE PROTECTION, INC.

No. 2011-C-0712.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 27, 2011.

In re Meaux Surface Protection Inc.; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certio-rari and/or Review, Parish of Lafayette, 15th Judicial District Court Div. K, No. *9962007-3865; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. *10-1210.*

Denied.