alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 21

- 2874

_____________________________ C ARL E VAN S UMMERLIN , Appellant,

v.

S TATE O F F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Bradford County

. James M. Colaw , Judge

. September 6, 2022

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. R AY , W INOKUR , and J AY , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Candice K. Brower, Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel, and Michael Jerome Titus, Assistant Regional Conflict Counsel, Tallahassee
, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
#### FINALCO, INC., petitioner, v. Theodore Steven ROOSEVELT.

No. 96-1183.

Supreme Court of the United States.

May 12, 1997.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
EXHIBIT 32.1  CERTIFICATE 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 (the "Report") on the Form 10-K of American Battery Metals Corporation (the "Company") for the transition period ended June 30, 2020, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Douglas D Cole, Chief Executive Officer, Principal Financial Officer and Director, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:  1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and  2. The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  Date: September 28, 2020By:/s/ Douglas D ColeDouglas D ColeChief Executive Officer,
Chief Financial Officer
Chairman
Form of Non-Renewal Notice



 EXHIBIT 10.22 
 



 
 M E M O R A N D U M 
 To: Executive Officer 
 From: Jack L. Kopnisky, President and CEO 

Date: July 20, 2011 
 Re: Employment
Agreement — Non-Renewal Notice 
 As currently in effect, the “Employment Period” under your Employment Agreement with Provident
Bank is extended every day pursuant to an “evergreen” provision in the Agreement. Consistent with executive compensation actions taken by many other companies, the Bank has decided to phase out the evergreen feature in the Agreement.

 To implement this change, this Memorandum serves as a “Non-Renewal Notice” under Section 2(a) of your Agreement. Effective
today, the Employment Period under your Agreement will cease to renew on a daily basis. As a result, the last day of the Employment Period under the Agreement will be July 20, 2013. 
 As reflected by Section 2(c) of the Agreement, expiration of the Employment Period does not automatically result in termination of your employment, and your employment may continue on such terms and
conditions as may be agreed upon between you and the Bank. 
  

											
				
	:                           
                                         
                          	 		 		 	:                           
                                         
                          
	 Jack L. Kopnisky
	 		 		 	Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 177 (Thursday, September 14, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43260-43261]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-19469]


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

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail and First-Class Package Service 
Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of notice required under 39 U.S.C. 3642(d)(1): September 
14, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
September 8, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
Request of the United States Postal Service to Add Priority Mail & 
First-Class Package Service Contract 55 to Competitive Product List. 
Documents are available at

[[Page 43261]]

www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2017-195, CP2017-296.

Elizabeth A. Reed,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2017-19469 Filed 9-13-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
Order entered November 23, 2021

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-21-00329-CR

EARNEST DEWAYNE CLAYTON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1

Rockwall County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CR17-2027

ORDER

We REINSTATE this appeal. We abated for the trial court to make findings 

of fact and conclusions of law. The supplemental clerk’s record containing those 

findings and conclusions was filed on November 19, 2021.

While the appeal was abated, the State filed a motion to extend time to file 

its brief. We GRANT the motion and ORDER the State’s brief due by December 

31, 2021.

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
**Exhibit 31.1**

** **

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO**

**SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT RULES 13a-14(a) AND 15d-14(a)**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Scott D. Levin, certify that:

 

1.              I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-K/A to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of FTD Companies, Inc.; and

 

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.

 

Date: April 30, 2019

 
|   | By:    | /s/ Scott D. Levin                      |
|--------|--------|-----------------------------------------|
|   |   | Scott D. Levin                          |
|   |   | *President and Chief Executive Officer* |

 

----
#### Michael D. VAN DEELEN, Appellant, v. CITY OF KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI; Wayne Cauthen; John Franklin; John Thigpen; Gail Roper; Richard Razniak, Beth Lacey; Rick Brisbin; Roy Greenway; Patrick Reisenbichler; City of Kansas City, Missouri Human Resources Board; Joseph Moreland; Margaret Evans; Lawrence Franklin; John Doe, (1-10); Jane Doe, (1-10), Appellees.

Nos. 06-1896, 06-3058.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: Oct. 5, 2007.

Filed: Oct. 19, 2007.

Michael D. Van Deelen, Eudora, KS, pro se.

Lana Kay Torczon, Charlotte Ferns Reed, City Attorney’s Office, Kansas City, MO, for Appellees.

Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

In these consolidated appeals, Michael Van Deelen appeals the district court’s 1 adverse judgment in his action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged constitutional violations with regard to the termination of his employment with the City of Kansas City, Missouri, for violation of its residency requirement. Following careful review, we affirm the district court’s grant of judgment for defendants on all of Van Deelen’s claims based on the court’s well-reasoned opinions. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B.

Van Deelen also appeals the district court’s order imposing sanctions for his conduct during trial of the matter. We affirm, but we modify the sanctions order. We find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the monetary sanction of $6,000. *See Bass v. Gen. Motors Corp.,*150 F.3d 842, 851 (8th Cir. 1998) (standard of review of court’s sanctions under inherent authority); *MHC Investment Co. v. Racom Corp.,*323 F.3d 620, 624 (8th Cir.2003) (standard of review for sanctions under Fed.R.CfvP. 11). After finding that Van Deelen had filed the lawsuit maliciously to vex and annoy the City, the court also enjoined Van Deelen *724from filing any future pro se litigation against the City, or its agents and employees, and ordered him to obtain counsel within 30 days in any pending litigation against the City or its agents and employees arising out of his termination or any related matter, or to dismiss the matter. While we agree with the district court that some filing restrictions were appropriate, *see Ruderer v. United States,*462 F.2d 897, 899 (8th Cir.1972) (per curiam), we modify the injunction to apply only to actions filed in federal district courts within this circuit. *See Sieverding v. Colorado Bar Ass’n,*469 F.3d 1340, 1344-45 (10th Cir.2006) (district court erred in placing-filing restrictions on federal district courts outside Tenth Circuit, state courts, and courts of appeals).

1

. The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.
#### *G.*Hugo WHITEHOUSE and Nicholas Jameson, Co-Trustees, v. ROSENBLUTH BROTHERS.

Misc. No. 2405.

United States District Court E. D. Pennsylvania.

Dec. *7,*1962.

No appearance for plaintiff.

S. Gordon Elkins and David H. Rosen-bluth, of Stradley, Ronon, Stevens & Young, Philadelphia, Pa., for defendants.

GRIM, District Judge.

In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, plaintiffs obtained a judgment which they registered in this court under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1963, by filing a certified copy of the Florida judgment. Under F.R.Civ.P. 60(b) defendants have moved this court to be relieved from the effects of the judgment here, contending that the Florida court had no jurisdiction over them and that, consequently, the judgment is void. The contention that the Florida judgment is void appears to be based upon a contention that defendants, residents of Pennsylvania, were not properly served with process.

The Florida judgment apparently was obtained in a bankruptcy or reorganization proceeding in which it was contended that the defendants owed the estate a certain sum of money. However, there is nothing in the record to show how the Florida court obtained jurisdiction over the defendants or indeed to show what kind of proceedings were used to obtain the judgment. The Florida court or a bankruptcy referee might have entered a turnover order against *248the defendants or a plenary suit may have been filed in the Florida District Court to obtain the judgment which now has been transferred to this court, but there is no indication of how service was made in the proceeding, whatever its nature.

Because of the lack of such vital information, this court cannot proceed any further on defendants’ motion to be relieved from the effects of the judgment. However, this court will not dismiss defendants’ motion but instead will defer action thereon until additional information has been submitted about the details of obtaining the Florida judgment. Defendants will be given 60 days from this date to submit proper evidence to establish this additional information. Plaintiffs may likewise produce evidence during that period. If defendants submit no such evidence within that time their motion for relief may be denied.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l unani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T S AH R MOHA ME D S AL E H G OMAA , P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 08- 74578 A ge nc yN o. A 095- 127- 238 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d A ugus t10, 2010 ** B efo re: L E A V Y , H A W K IN S , an dIK U T A , C i rcu i tJu d g es. S ahrM oha m e d S a l e h G om a a , ana t i ve and c i t i z e n of E gypt , pe t i t i ons f

or re vi ew of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ order di sm i ss i ng her app ea l fr om an i m m i gr a t i on j udge ’ s ( “ I J ” ) de c i s i on de ny i ng he rm ot i on t o r e c ons i de r . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r8 U . S . C . § 1252. W e r e vi e w f orabus e of

di s c r e t i on the de ni a l of 

# FI LED SEP 02 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS08- 74578 2 am o tio n to r e c o n s id e ran dd e n o v o c la im s o f du e p r o c e s s v io la tio n s . Se e CanoMe r i da v . I

NS , 3 1 1 F . 3 d9 6 0 , 9 6 4 ( 9 th C i r . 2 0 0 2 ) . We d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. T h e a g e n c yd idn o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n in d e n y in g G o m a a ’s m o tio n to re co n sid erb ec au se G o m aafa il ed to id en ti fy an y e rr o rs o f f ac t o r law inth e I J’s Ju ly1 2 , 2 0 0 7 , o r d e r . See 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 3 ( b ) ( 2 ) . T he I Jdi d notvi ol a t e G om a a ’ s due pr oc e s s r i ght s w he r e G om a adoe s not di s put e the I Ja l l ow e d he rt o di s c us s he ropt i ons f orr e l i e f w i th he ra tt orne yand o f f e r e dh e ras h o rt c o n tin u an c e to f ile an a s y lu m ap p lic a tio n . See I ba rra-Flores v. G on zales , 4 3 9 F .3 d6 1 4 , 6 2 0 - 2 1 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) ( n o du e p r o c e s s v io la tio n e x is ts un l es s “ the proceedi ng w as so fund am ent al l y unfai r thatthe al i en w as prevent ed f r om r e a s onabl ypr e s e nt i ng hi s c a s e ” ) ( i nt e rna l quot a t i on m arks and c i t a t i on o m itte d ) ; c

f . Cano-Me r i da , 31 1 F . 3d at96 4-65 (due process vi ol at i on w here IJ c onduc t e d of

f - the - r e c or d di s c us s i on w i th pr o s e pe t i t i one rand pr e - j udge d the m e r its o f p e titio n e r ’s a s y lu m c la im ) . P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.
Annual Incentive Award Plan Criteria for fiscal year 2012



 EXHIBIT 10.1 
 Annual Incentive Award Plan Criteria for Fiscal Year 2012 for Named Executive Officers 

The Annual Incentive Plan rewards performance based upon segment profit, business unit and individual results. The named executive officers are assigned
the following Target Award Percentage of their base salary for fiscal year 2012 Annual Incentive Awards: 
  

			
	 Level
	  	 Target Award Percentage

	 CEO
	  	110%
	 12
	  	75%
	 11
	  	65%

 Awards are based upon the segment profit of our truck, engine, parts and financial services segments and may be adjusted
based upon overall business unit and/or individual performance as illustrated in the table below: 
  

																	
	 Base Salary
	  	x	  	 Target Award
Percentage
	  	x	  	 Segment Profit
Factor
	  	x	  	 Business Unit
/Individual

Factor
	  	=	  	 Final Award



The payout multiple of a participant’s Target Award Percentage, depending upon whether threshold, target, distinguished or super-distinguished
performance is achieved is as follows: 
 Payout Multiple of Target Award Percentage 

 

					
	 Threshold
	  	 	25	% 
	 Target
	  	 	100	% 
	 Distinguished
	  	 	150	% 
	 Super-Distinguished
	  	 	200	% 

 Segment profit measures the earnings before interest and tax of our truck, engine, parts and financial services segments;
our manufacturing margin measures the earnings before interest and tax of our truck, engine and parts segments.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 29, 2021

No. 04-21-00363-CV

IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF BEN ARZA, III, DECEASED

From the County Court, Guadalupe County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2020-PC-0203

Honorable Bill Squires, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The clerk’s record is presently due on November 29, 2021. On September 27, 2021, the 

trial court clerk filed a notification of late clerk’s record, stating appellant is not entitled to 

appeal without paying the fee, and the appellant has failed to pay the fee for preparing the record.

We, therefore, ORDER appellant to provide written proof to this court no later than 

October 11, 2021 that either (1) the clerk’s fee for preparing the clerk’s fee has been paid or 

arrangements have been made to pay the clerk’s fee; or (2) appellant is entitled to appeal without 

paying the clerk’s fee. If appellant fails to respond within the time provided, this appeal will be 

dismissed for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(b) (allowing dismissal of appeal for 

want of prosecution if clerk’s record is not filed due to appellant’s fault); see also TEX. R. APP.

P. 42.3(c) (allowing dismissal of appeal if appellant fails to comply with an order of this court).

_________________________________

Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

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

court on this 29th day of September, 2021.

___________________________________

Michael A. Cruz, 

Clerk of Court
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, 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.

 April 28, 2014

h0421

Order 

Clerk

April 28, 2014

147575(19)

TARGET CORPORATION,

Petitioner-Appellee,

v SC: 147575

COA: 312045

Ct of Claims: 11-001392-AA

STATE TAX COMMISSION and

CHARLESTON TOWNSHIP,

Respondents-Appellants. 

______________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s January 29, 

2014 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was 

entered erroneously.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                   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 Health Fitness
Corporation (the "Company") for the period ended September 30, 2004, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2004 (the "Periodic
Report"), I, Jerry V. Noyce, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby
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 Periodic 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 Periodic Report fairly presents, in
            all material respects, the financial condition and results of
            operations of the Company.

/s/ Jerry V. Noyce

Jerry V. Noyce
Chief Executive Officer
November 8, 2004
EXHIBIT 33.1





REPORT ON ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH SERVICING CRITERIA


FOR ASSET-BACKED ISSUERS





Ohio Power Company (the "Servicer"), as a party participating in the servicing function under Item 1122 of Regulation AB, hereby reports on its assessment of compliance with the servicing criteria specified in paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of Regulation AB, as follows:





(1) The Servicer is responsible for assessing compliance with the servicing criteria applicable to it. The servicing criteria specified in the following paragraphs of paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of Regulation AB are not applicable to the Servicer based on the activities it performs with respect to asset-backed securities transactions taken as a whole involving the Servicer and that are backed by the same asset type backing the Senior Secured Phase-In-Recovery Bonds: (1)(ii) (outsourcing), (1)(iii) (back-up servicing), (1)(iv) (fidelity bond), (2)(vi) (unissued checks), (3)(ii) (allocation and remittance), (4)(iii) (additions, removals or substitutions), (4)(v) (records regarding pool assets), (4)(ix) (adjustments to interest rates), (4)(x) (funds held in trust), (4)(xi) (payments on behalf of obligors), (4)(xii) (late payment penalties), (4)(xiii) (obligor disbursements), and (4)(xv) (external credit enhancement);





(2) The Servicer used the criteria in paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of Regulation AB to assess compliance with the applicable servicing criteria;





(3) The Servicer has determined that it is in compliance with the applicable servicing criteria as of December 31, 2015 and for the period January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2015, which is the period covered by this report on Form 10-K; and





(4) Deloitte & Touche LLP, an independent  registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation report on the Servicer's assessment of compliance with the applicable servicing criteria as of December 31, 2015 and for the period January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2015, which is the period covered by this report on Form 10-K.





Date: March 28, 2016





OHIO POWER COMPANY,


as Servicer








/s/ Julia A. Sloat


Name:  Julia A. Sloat


Title: Treasurer and Senior Officer in Charge of


the Servicing Function, Ohio Power Company, as Servicer
EX-35.8


(logo) WELLS FARGO

Commercial Mortgage Servicing
D1086-120, 12th Floor
550 South Tryon Street
Charlotte, NC 28202
1-800-326-1334


ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

Reference is hereby made to that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement
dated as of June 1, 2013, by and among WELLS FARGO COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE
SECURITIES, INC., as Depositor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
as Master Servicer, RIALTO CAPITAL ADVISORS, LLC, as Special Servicer,
PENTALPHA SURVEILLANCE LLC, as Trust Advisor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, as Certificate Administrator, as Tax Administrator and as
Custodian, and U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee, with respect
to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates WFRBS Series 2013-C14
(the "Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined
shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

Pursuant to Section 11.12 of this Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive
Vice President of Commercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify that:

1. A review of the activities of the Servicer during the period from June 1,
   2013 through December 31, 2013 (the "Reporting Period"), and of its
   performance per the Agreement during such period has been made under my
   supervision, and

2. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer, has
   fulfilled all of its obligations under this Agreement in all material
   respects throughout the Reporting Period.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of
the 7th day of March 2014.



/s/ Daniel Bober
Daniel Bober
Executive Vice President
Wells Fargo Bank

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

(logo) Together we'll go far