alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The  schedule  contains  summary   information   extracted  from  the  financial
statements of the September 30, 1996 Form 10-Q of Aircraft  Income Partners L.P.
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                       6,703,629
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,901,441
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            11,605,070
<PP&E>                                     127,676,927
<DEPRECIATION>                              70,789,948
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              42,275,561
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,090,270
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  37,001,412
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                42,275,561
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            13,421,874
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  633,088
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             6,750,979
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                66,133
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,570
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              5,970,104
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 5,970,104
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO

SP ACQUISITION HOLDINGS, INC.



FOUNDER’S SECURITIES



PURCHASE AGREEMENT




THIS AMENDMENT NO. 1, dated as of October 4, 2007 (this “Amendment”), is made by and between SP Acquisition Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”) and SP Acq LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (the “Purchaser” and, together with the Company, the “Parties”).

WHEREAS, the Parties are party to that certain Founder’s Securities Purchase Agreement, dated as of March 22, 2007 (the “Agreement”); and

WHEREAS, the Parties wish to amend the Agreement as herein provided.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained in this Amendment and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties hereby agree as follows:

1.

The third paragraph of the recitals is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: 

WHEREAS, concurrently with the closing of the Initial Public Offering, the Purchaser desires to purchase and the Company desires to issue and sell, upon the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement, for an aggregate purchase price of $7,000,000 (the “Additional Founder’s Warrants Purchase Price”), 7,000,000 Additional Founder’s Warrants to purchase Shares (the “Additional Founder’s Warrants”).

2.

The Purchaser agrees that all of the representations and warranties that it made in Section 3 of the Agreement are true and correct as of the date hereof and the Purchaser represents that it will distribute the Additional Founder’s Warrants in accordance with the securities laws. 

3.

The Agreement is amended hereby solely as provided herein and, as so amended, continues in full force and effect.




Signature page follows


























IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment on the date first written above.

		
	SP ACQUISITION HOLDINGS, INC.

	 

	 
	 

	       /s/ Warren G. Lichtenstein 

	 

	By:

Warren G. Lichtenstein, Chairman of the Board of   

        Directors, President and Chief Executive Officer

	 

	 
	 

	 
	 

	 
	 

	SP ACQ LLC

	 

	 
	 

	       /s/ Warren G. Lichtenstein 

	 

	By:

Warren G. Lichtenstein, Managing Member
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                           4,201
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,276,486
<ALLOWANCES>                                   110,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,936,227
<PP&E>                                       4,921,216
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,691,011
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              13,154,551
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        8,099,016
<BONDS>                                      2,142,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         9,882
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,811,339
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                13,154,551
<SALES>                                     23,715,049
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            23,715,049
<CGS>                                       11,001,246
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               14,784,283
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             342,024
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,325,407)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (842,363)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,483,044)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,483,044)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.15)
        

</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

DAVID ARLINGTON ZILLHART,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 600 MAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 13th day of December, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of 

Appeal is DENIED.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03
- 24
- 00044
- CR

Stewart Thomas Mettz , Appellant

v. The State of Texas , Appellee

FROM THE 22ND DISTRICT COURT OF HAYS COUNTY NO. CR
- 18
- 0144
- C , THE HONORABLE R. BRUCE BOYER , JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Stewart Thomas Mettz was charged with capital murder for killing police officer Kenneth Copeland, who was a peace officer and who was acting in the lawful discharge of his official duty at the time of the murder. See Tex. Penal Code § 19.03. Following a trial, the jury found Mettz guilty . The State did not seek the death penalty, and therefore, the trial court automatically assessed punishment at life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. See id. § 12.31. Mettz appealed his conviction.

Mettz’s court

- appointed attorney on appeal filed a motion to withdraw supported by an Anders brief contending that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744

- 45 (1967). Mettz’s court

- appointed attorney ’ s brief , which concludes that the appeal is frivolous and without merit , meets the requirements of Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating that there are no arguable2

grounds to be advanced. See id. ; Garner v. State , 300 S.W.3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); see also Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 81

- 82 (1988) (explaining that Anders briefs serve purpose of “assisting the court in determining both that counsel in fact conducted the required detailed review of the case and that the appeal is .

. . frivolous”). Mettz’s counsel represented to the Court that he provided copies of the motion and brief to Mettz ; advised Mettz of his right to examine the appellate record, file a pro se brief, and pursue discretionary review following the resolution of the appeal in this Court; and provided Mettz with a form motion for pro se access to the appellate record along with the mailing address of this Court. See Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313, 319

- 20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). After requesting a copy of the appellate record, Mettz fil ed a pro se brief challenging his conviction.

We have independently reviewed the record and considered appellate counsel ’ s brief and Mettz’s pro se brief , and we have found nothing that might arguably support the appeal. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744; Garner , 300 S.W.3d at 766. We agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. We grant counsel ’ s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court ’ s judgment of conviction.

__________________________________________ Thomas J. Baker , Justice Before Justices Baker, Smith, and Theofanis Affirmed Filed: August 23, 2024 Do Not Publish
AR

DRIVING SAFELY THROUGH 

WORK

ZONES

ARKANSAS

FAST FACTS

32

IN 2021,

% OF WORK 

ZONE FATALITIES 

INVOLVED A 

CMV DRIVER.1

6

IN 2021, ARKANSAS SAW

CRASHES INVOLVING 

A CMV, RESULTING IN 7FATALITIES2

STAY ALERT 

ARKANSAS:

Download the IDrive Arkansas app or visit idrivearkansas.com

for the most up-to-date work zone information and real-time 

travel information.

1 National Work Zone Safety Information Clearinghouse 

2 National Work Zone Safety Information Clearinghouse

Work zones present unique challenges for 

large trucks and buses. Do your part to 

make roads safer by remembering to plan 

your route, move early into an open lane, 

avoid distractions, obey signs and signals 

to slow down or stop, and keep extra 

space between vehicles.

NATIONAL WORK 

ZONE FACTS 2021

Total Work Zone Fatalities: 956

Drivers and Passengers: 778

Pedestrians and Bicyclists: 173

Others: 5

(Occupants of non-motor vehicle transport 

device and persons on personal conveyances)

Total Fatal Work Zone Crashes 

Involving 

a CMV: 291

From 2020 to 2021, the number of 

fatal work zone crashes involving a 

large truck or bus increased by 41%.

For more information on driving safely around large trucks 

and buses, visit www.ShareTheRoadSafely.gov and for 

more on work zone safety, visit www.workzonesafety.org.

FMCSA-ADO-23-004
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Eddie Levert DAVIS, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 10-7206.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Nov. 18, 2010.

Decided: Dec. 2, 2010.

Eddie Levert Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Sara Elizabeth Chase, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before SHEDD and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Eddie Levert Davis appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for a reduction in sentence. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Davis’s motion for appointment of counsel and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *United States v. Davis,*No. 3:07-cr-00415-HEH-1 (E.D.Va. Mar. 2, 2010). 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.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<PAGE>

<ARTICLE>                    5

<LEGEND>                     The Schedule contains summary financial
                             information extracted from the financial
                             statements for Prudential-Bache/A.G. Spanos
                             Genesis Income Partners L.P., I, and is
                             qualified entirely by reference to such
                             financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<RESTATED>

<CIK>                        000803399
<NAME>             Prudential-Bache/AG Spanos Genesis Income Partners LP I
<MULTIPLIER>                 1

<FISCAL-YEAR-END>            Dec-31-1997

<PERIOD-START>               Jan-1-1997

<PERIOD-END>                 Dec-31-1997

<PERIOD-TYPE>                12-Mos

<CASH>                       5323329

<SECURITIES>                 0

<RECEIVABLES>                394236

<ALLOWANCES>                 0

<INVENTORY>                  0

<CURRENT-ASSETS>             5717565

<PP&E>                       101809401

<DEPRECIATION>               33632580

<TOTAL-ASSETS>               73894386

<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>        2448481

<BONDS>                      57927235

<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>        0

<PREFERRED>                  0

<COMMON>                     0

<OTHER-SE>                   13518670

<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY> 73894386

<SALES>                      16317774

<TOTAL-REVENUES>             16507383

<CGS>                        0

<TOTAL-COSTS>                0

<OTHER-EXPENSES>             11351207

<LOSS-PROVISION>             0

<INTEREST-EXPENSE>           4867527

<INCOME-PRETAX>              0

<INCOME-TAX>                 0

<INCOME-CONTINUING>          0

<DISCONTINUED>               0

<EXTRAORDINARY>              0

<CHANGES>                    0

<NET-INCOME>                 288649

<EPS-PRIMARY>                4.37

<EPS-DILUTED>                0

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.01

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 of Caraustar Industries, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q
for the period ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, in the capacity and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:



| | 1. | the 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 Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                      |  |     |  |                                      
|--------------------- |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------
|                      |  | By: |  | /s/ Michael J. Keough                
|                      |  |     |  | Michael J. Keough                    
|Date: August 14, 2009 |  |     |  | President and Chief Executive Officer



3
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Environmental Protection Agency

          - [FRL-7119-9] 

# AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency. 

# ACTION:

                        Notice of proposed                         *de minimis*                         settlement.                     

# SUMMARY:

                        Under Section 122(g)(4) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has offered a                         *de minimis*                         settlement under an Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) to settle claims for past and future response costs at the Whitehouse Waste Oil Pits Superfund Site (Site) located in Whitehouse, Duval County, Florida. Forty-two (42) parties have returned signature pages accepting EPA's settlement offer. EPA will consider public comments on the proposed settlement for thirty (30) days. EPA may withdraw from or modify the proposed settlement should such comments disclose facts or considerations which indicate the proposed settlement is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate. Copies of the proposed settlement are available from: Ms. Paula V. Batchelor, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV, CERCLA Program Services Branch, Waste Management Division, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303, (404) 562-8887.                     

Written comments may be submitted to Mr. Ray Strickland at the above address within 30 days of the date of publication. 

Dated: November 28, 2001. 

Franklin E. Hill, 

Chief, CERCLA Program Services Branch, Waste Management Division. 

[FR Doc. 01-31242 Filed 12-18-01; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
#### In re: REFCO, LLC Mary Lou Lee, Samantha Foo, Jason Foo, Foo, LLC, Estate of Chin Min Foo, Appellants, v. Refco, LLC, Appellee, Albert Togut, as Chapter 7 Trustee for the Estate of Refco, LLC, Trustee-Appellee.

No. 08-1057-bk.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Dec. 16, 2008.

*479Brian M. Delaurentis, New York, NY, for Appellants.

David H. Hixson (Barry Sullivan & Vincent E. Lazar, on the brief), Jenner & Block LLP, Chicago, IL, for Appellees.

PRESENT: Hon. JOSEPH M. McLaughlin, Hon. guido CALABRESI and Hon. DEBRA A. LIVINGSTON, Circuit Judges.

SUMMARY ORDER

The District Court affirmed the Bankruptcy Court’s dismissal of Appellants’ claim on the ground that Appellant’s claim is subject to issue preclusion. The Bankruptcy Court held that the claim was precluded, and in the alternative that Appellant’s claim belongs to a different entity, the LFG Liquidation Trust. We review the Bankruptcy Court decision in this case independently. *See Browning v. MCI, Inc. (In re Worldcom, Inc.),*546 F.3d 211, 216 (2d Cir.2008). Assuming *arguendo*that Appellants are not precluded from raising their claim, we conclude, for substantially the same reasons expressed by the Bankruptcy Court, that the claim belongs to the LFG Liquidation Trust, and therefore Appellants cannot raise the claim here. We have considered all of Appellants’ arguments and have found them to be without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.
Skip to main content    

      Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission    

En Español

            - About FMSHRC               - News
              - Commissioners
              - Chairman and Commissioner Tenure
              - Administrative Law Judges
            - Guides               - Frequently Asked Questions
              - FOIA Guide
              - How a Case Proceeds Before the Commission
              - Guide to Commission Proceedings
              - Requests to Reopen
              - Instructions for Electronic Filing
              - Videoconference Hearings
              - Section 105(c)(3) Complaints
            - Decisions               - Review Commission Decisions
              - ALJ Decisions
              - Blue Books
            - Review Commission Arguments & Meetings               - Oral Arguments
              - Meetings
            - The Mine Act & Procedural Rules               - The Mine Act
              - Procedural Rules
              - Changes to Procedural Rules
            - FOIA               - Submit a FOIA Request
              - FOIA Guide
              - Rules
              - FOIA References
              - FOIA Library
              - FOIA Public Liaison
              - FOIA Reports
              - Proposed FOIA Rules
            - Reports & Budget Submissions               - Strategic Plans
              - Budget and Annual Performance Reports
              - Buy American Reports
              - Performance Accountability Reports
              - Sustainability Report
              - Reports to Congress
              - Contingency Plan
              - Reports to the President
            - Cases on Review               - Cases Currently on Review Before the Commission
              - Commission Decisions On Appeal
            - Contact Us

## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  Node 
-                   2024 Chief FOIA Officer's Report              

#   2024 Chief FOIA Officer's Report

2024%20FMSHRC%20Chief%20FOIA%20Officer%20Report.pdf

##### Footer Links

-  EEO Policies 
-  No Fear Act Notice 
-  Employee Ethical Conduct 
-  Equal Access to Justice Act 
-  Motions to Approve Settlement 
-  Non-Discrimination 
-  Reasonable Accommodation Procedures 
-  Privacy Act 
-  Sunshine Act Regulations 
-  USA.gov 
-  FMSHRC Privacy Policy 
-  Vulnerability Disclosure Policy 

### The Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission

#### 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,Suite 520NWashington, DC 20004-1710Phone: (202)434-9900TTY/TDD (202)434-4000 ext. 293E-mail: fmshrc@fmshrc.gov
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Elton G. MINNIEFIELD, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-30315

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Dec. 8, 2010.

Cristina Walker, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Louisiana, Shreveport, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Betty Lee Marak, Esq., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Shreveport, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Elton G. Minniefield, Forrest City, AR, pro se.

Before KING, BENAVIDES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Elton G. Minniefield has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Minniefield has not filed a response. Our independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See 5th*Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.