alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                Exhibit 10.52.1

List of Senior Vice Presidents who have executed executive severance agreements:

Angela F. Braly               Senior VP/General Counsel/Corp. Secr.
Stuart K. Campbell            Senior VP, Client Services
Michael Fulk                  Senior VP, Sales and Marketing
Herb Schneiderman             Senior VP, Medical Delivery Systems
John J. Seidenfeld, MD        Senior VP & Chief Medical Officer
Richard Smith                 Senior VP, Diversified Life Insurance Co.
Edward J. Tenholder           Senior VP, BCBSMo Chief Operating Officer
Connie L. Van Fleet           Senior VP, Chief Information Officer
Sandra A. Van Trease          Senior Vp, Chief Operating Officer, Chief
                              Financial Officer
Kathleen M. Zorica            Senior VP, Business Analysis & Product Development
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Doris MCKINNEY, Appellant.

No. 02-4090.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 13, 2003.

Decided Aug. 22, 2003.

Dorothy Lear McMurtry, St. Louis, MO, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Janis C. Good, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Doris McKinney, St. Louis, MO, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before BYE, BOWMAN, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Doris McKinney appeals her conviction and sentence. A jury found McKinney guilty of executing a scheme to defraud a financial institution. *See*18 U.S.C. § 1344 (2000). The District Court1 sentenced McKinney to one month of imprisonment and five years of supervised release, with the condition that she participate in a home-confinement program for five months. On appeal, McKinney’s counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), arguing that the District Court erred in denying her motion for a downward departure.

The District Court’s discretionary decision not to grant the downward departure is unreviewable absent an unconstitutional motive. *See United States v. VanHouten,*307 F.3d 693, 696 (8th Cir.2002). Following careful review of the record, we find no other nonfrivolous issues. *See Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

A true copy.

1

. The Honorable Charles A. Shaw, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Patrick W.Hurley, Chief Financial Officer of Sport-Haley, Inc., certify that:

 

1.     I have reviewed thisquarterly report on Form 10-Q of Sport-Haley, Inc.;

 

2.     Based on my knowledge, thisreport does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit tostate a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.     Based on my knowledge, thefinancial statements, and other financial information included in this report,fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;

 

4.     The registrant’s othercertifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

(a)   Designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures tobe designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

 

(b)   Evaluated the effectivenessof the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in thisreport our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

 

(c)   Disclosed in this report anychange in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.     The registrant’s othercertifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluationof internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors andthe audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):

 

(a)   All significant deficienciesand material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and

 

(b)   Any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

Date:  November 19, 2004

 

 
| /s/ PATRICK  W. HURLEY                          |   |
|-------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Patrick W.  Hurley                              |
| Chief  Financial Officer                        |
| *(Principal  Financial and Accounting Officer)* |

 

1

----
{"agency":"NASA","generated":"2014-10-20 08:01:12","items":[{"id":"1","parent":null,"text":"Reporting Quarter","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-year","label":"Reporting Year","options":[{"label":"2011","value":"2011"},{"label":"2012","value":"2012"},{"label":"2013","value":"2013"},{"label":"2014","value":"2014"}],"value":"2014"},{"type":"select","name":"2-1-quarter","label":"Reporting Quarter","options":[{"label":"Q1","value":"Q1"},{"label":"Q2","value":"Q2"},{"label":"Q3","value":"Q3"},{"label":"Q4","value":"Q4"}],"value":"Q4"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-1","parent":"1","text":"Ten Oldest Requests","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-1-oldest","label":"Ten Oldest","options":[{"label":"0","value":"0"},{"label":"1","value":"1"},{"label":"2","value":"2"},{"label":"3","value":"3"},{"label":"4","value":"4"},{"label":"5","value":"5"},{"label":"6","value":"6"},{"label":"7","value":"7"},{"label":"8","value":"8"},{"label":"9","value":"9"},{"label":"10","value":"10"}],"value":"10"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-3","parent":"1","text":"","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-3-closed","label":"Ten Oldest Closed","options":[{"label":"0","value":"0"},{"label":"1","value":"1"},{"label":"2","value":"2"},{"label":"3","value":"3"},{"label":"4","value":"4"},{"label":"5","value":"5"},{"label":"6","value":"6"},{"label":"7","value":"7"},{"label":"8","value":"8"},{"label":"9","value":"9"},{"label":"10","value":"10"}],"value":"9"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-2","parent":"1","text":"FOIA Requests Information","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/08\/21","fields":[{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-component","label":"Component","options":[],"value":["ARC","DFRC","GRC","GSFC","HQ","JPL","JSC","KSC","LaRC","MSFC","NSSC","OGC","OIG","SSC"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-received","label":"Received","options":[],"value":["2"," "," ","5","16","5","9","19","1","1","5"," "," ","2"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-processed","label":"Processed","options":[],"value":["5"," "," ","7","16","8","15","25","4","3","1"," ","1","2"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-backlog","label":"Backlog","options":[],"value":["4"," "," ","1"," "," ","1","5"," "," "," "," "," "," "]}],"multiple":true}],"year":"2014","quarter":"Q4"}
#### GEORGE E. WARREN CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY and Carol M. Browner, Administrator, Respondents. Friends of the Earth, et al., Intervenors.

Nos. 97-1651, 97-1656.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Jan. 29, 1999.

Before: GINSBURG, SENTELLE, and ROGERS, Circuit Judges.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the EPA’s Motion To Clarify and Amend the Court’s Opinion With Respect to the Issue of Prudential Standing [159 F.3d 616 (1998) ] and of the responsive pleadings filed with respect thereto, it is

ORDERED by the court that the motion is granted, and the opinion is amended as follows:

At pages 620-21: Delete the two paragraphs immediately following the heading “A. Justiciability,” as well as the first word of the third paragraph: “Second.”

The material now to be omitted was based upon the erroneous belief that the petition for review had been filed under 42 U.S.C. § 7604(a), when in fact it was filed under 42 U.S.C. § 7607(b)(1). We need not, however, revisit the issue whether the Independent Refiners Coalition had prudential standing under the latter provision.

Although Article III precludes us from deciding a matter on the merits before determining that the party presenting it has constitutional standing to do so, see *Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t,*523 U.S. 83, 118 S.Ct. 1003, 1016, 140 L.Ed.2d 210 (1998), there is no such barrier to deciding a matter on the merits before determining that the party presenting it has prudential standing. *See id.*at -, n. 2, 118 S.Ct. at 1013, n. 2 (citing *National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. National Ass’n of Railroad Passengers,*414 U.S. 453, 465 n. 13, 94 S.Ct. 690, 38 L.Ed.2d 646 (1974)). Having already rejected the IRC’s claims on their merits, therefore, we need not now retrospectively decide whether it had prudential standing to bring those claims — ’though it is unlikely we would have proceeded in this manner going forward. *See Busse Broadcasting Corp. v. FCC,*87 F.3d 1456, 1462-63 (D.C.Cir.1996) (presenting rare case in which appropriate to decide merits before prudential standing).

*So ordered.*
## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fo rt Worth

___________________________ No. 02

- 19

- 00407

- CR

___________________________

On Appeal from the 431st District Court Denton County, Texas Trial Court No. F19

- 546

- 431

Be fore Kerr, Birdwell, and Wallach, JJ. M emorandum Opinion by Justice Wallach 

### C HRISTOPHER 

### C HASE 

### , Appellant
V


### . T HE 

### S TATE OF 

### T EXAS2 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Chris top her Chase app eals from his convict ion and sentence for assault

– family violence

. We affirm. A jury found Chase guilty of third

- degree felony as sault

– family violence , which

was enhanced by a prior felony conviction t hat increased the punishment range fo r the offense to that of a second

- degree felony

. See Tex. Pe nal Co de A nn. § § 12.33, 12.42(a), 22.01 (a), (b)(2)

. The jury assess ed Chase ’ s punis hmen t at five years ’ confi nement, and the trial court sente nced Chase and entered judgment accordingly. Chas e ’s court

- appoin ted appellate attorney has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and a brief in support of that motion

. See Anders v. California , 386 U. S. 738 , 74 4

– 45, 87 S. Ct. 1396 , 1400 (1967). C ounsel’s brief and motion meet the requirements of Anders , which requires presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstra ting why there are no a r gu able grounds for relief. Id

. , 87 S. C t . at 140 0. Chase was provided a copy of the record a nd filed a pro se response, but his response does not sho w any arguable g rounds for appeal. The State declined to f ile a brief. W e have in dependen tly examined the record , as is our duty upon the filing of

an Ande rs brief. See Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. A pp. 1991); Mays v. State , 9 04 S .W.2d 920, 922

– 23 (T ex . App.

— Fort Worth 1995, no pe t.); see a lso Penson

v. Ohio , 48 8 U.S. 75 , 82

– 83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988). After carefully reviewing the record , w e agree with counsel that the a ppeal is wholly frivolous and without mer it.3 Our i ndependent revie w of the recor d r eveals not hing further that might arg uably sup po r t the appeal

. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 827

– 28 (T ex. Crim. App. 2005); s ee al so Meza v. State , 206 S.W.3d 684, 685 n.6 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). Accordi ngly, w e grant couns e l’s motion to with draw and a ffirm the trial court ’ s judgment

.

/s/ Mike Wallach Mike Wallach Ju stic e D o Not Publish Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b) Delivered : August 26, 2021
HIRRIE ROBINSON,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D16-3250

_____________________________/

Opinion filed September 1, 2017.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County.

Angela C. Dempsey, Judge.

Mark V. Murray, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Virginia Harris and Kaitlin Weiss, Assistant 

Attorneys General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WINOKUR, JAY, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., CONCUR.
EXHIBIT 32



The undersigned, as the chief executive officer and chief financial officer of MainStreet BankShares, Inc., certify that to our knowledge the Form 10-KSB for the year
ended December 31, 2004, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of MainStreet BankShares, Inc. at the dates and for the periods indicated. The foregoing certification is made solely for purposes of 18 USC, Section 1350 and is subject to the knowledge and willfulness
qualifications contained in Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350(c).



|              |  |                                      
|------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: 3/21/05 |  | /s/ Cecil R. McCullar                
|              |  | Cecil R. McCullar                    
|              |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
|              | 
|Date: 3/21/05 |  | /s/ Brenda H. Smith                  
|              |  | Brenda H. Smith                      
|              |  | Executive Vice President             
|              |  | Chief Financial Officer              
|              |  | Corporate Secretary                  



62
#### HOWARD SHACHNOVITZ v. LAWRENCE J. GUSTAFSON, JR.

September 5, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
Exhibit 99.1

NEWS RELEASE

|                      |  |  |  |                                                               
|--------------------- |  |  |  | --------------------------------------------------------------
|For Immediate Release |  |  |  | Contact: Howard Kaminsky, Sr. VP-CFO
(818)  790-2717 EXT. 256

SPORT CHALET ANNOUNCES ELECTION OF
CRAIG LEVRA AS CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD

Los Angeles, California  (August 1, 2001)  Norbert Olberz, the founder of
Sport Chalet, Inc. (NASDAQ  NMS:SPCH), announced today at the Annual Meeting
of Stockholders that at the age of 76, he is stepping down from his position as
Chairman of the Board. Mr. Olberz founded the company in 1959 in La Canada,
California and remains the principal stockholder.

Craig Levra, the 42 year old President and Chief Executive Officer, was elected
Chairman of the Board of Directors at their meeting today. Mr. Levra joined
the Company as President in November of 1997. He was appointed to the
Companys Board of Directors in November of 1998, and Chief Executive Officer
in August 1999.

Mr. Olberz will assume the title of Chairman Emeritus and continue to serve on
the Companys Board of Directors. Commenting on the appointment Mr. Olberz
stated,  I would like to spend more time with my wife and partner, Irene.
The Board of Directors has been very satisfied with Mr. Levras performance
these past three years. He has led the company to record sales and profits and
we are confident that he will continue to motivate and lead the Sport Chalet
team.

Sport Chalet is a leading operator of full service specialty sporting goods
superstores, operating in Southern California since 1959. The Company offers
over 35 services for the serious sports enthusiast, including custom golf club
fitting and repair, ski rental and repair, full dive training and certification
programs, SCUBA charters, team sales, racquet stringing, and bicycle tune up
and repair through its 24 locations. The address for Sport Chalets web site
is www.sportchalet.com.

Except for historical information contained herein, the statements in this
release are forward-looking and made pursuant to the safe harbor provisions of
the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward-looking
statements involve known and unknown risks and uncertainties that may cause the
Companys actual results in future periods to differ materially from forecasted
results. Those risks include, among other things, the competitive environment
in the sporting goods industry in general and in Companys specific market
areas, inflation, changes in costs of goods and services and economic
conditions in general and in specific market areas. Certain of these and other
risks are more fully described in the Companys filings with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

-end-

14
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Swift Energy
Operating  Partners  1992-B  Ltd.'s  balance  sheet and  statement of operations
contained  in its Form 10-Q for the  quarter  ended  September  30,  1999 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         266,535
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  330,034
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               620,268
<PP&E>                                         9,084,145
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (7,755,253)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 2,262,011
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          88,010
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     1,801,357
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   2,262,011
<SALES>                                        480,375
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               492,757
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  364,514<F1>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                21,172
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            21,172
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   21,172
<EPS-BASIC>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
<FN>
<F1>Includes  lease  operating  expenses,  production  taxes  and  depreciation,
depletion and  amortization  expense.  Excludes general and  administrative  and
interest expense.
</FN>



</TABLE>
#### WILLIAM MORRIS v. UNSATISFIED CLAIM & JUDGMENT FUND BOARD v. WILLIAM MUSE.

June 12, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
Exhibit 32.1CERTIFICATIONPursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, each of the undersigned officers of Rent-Way, Inc. (the “Company”), does hereby certify, tosuch officer’s knowledge, that:The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2005, (the “Form 10-Q”) of theCompany fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934 and the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.   Dated:August 8, 2005 /s/ William S. Short     William S. Short  Chief Executive Officer   Dated:August 8, 2005 /s/ William A. McDonnell     William A. McDonnell,  Chief Financial OfficerThis certification is being furnished solely to accompany this Form-10Q pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company unless suchincorporation is expressly referenced herein.
The Honorable D. Brook Bartlett, Chief Judge, United States 1

District Court for the Western District of Missouri.

_____________________

Nos. 95-4060/96-1189 

_____________________

Ervin Wright, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeals from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

City of Kansas City, *

Missouri, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: November 8, 1996

 Filed: November 15, 1996

___________

Before BEAM, HANSEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Ervin Wright, an African American, appeals the district court's1

grant of summary judgment to Kansas City, Missouri, in his civil rights

action. After careful review of the record and the parties' briefs, we

conclude that the district court's judgment was correct. Accordingly, we

affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.