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

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C.  20549

 

Form 10-Q

 

(MarkOne)

[X]   QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TOSECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

 

For the quarterly period ended March 31, 2009

 

or

 

[]   TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THESECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

 

 

For the transition period from _________to _________

 

Commission file number 0-17646

 

 

UNITED INVESTORS INCOMEPROPERTIES

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

 

 

 

55 Beattie Place, PO Box 1089

Greenville, South Carolina  29602

(Address of principal executive offices)

 

(864) 239-1000

(Registrant's telephone number, including area code)

 

Indicateby check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to befiled by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during thepreceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was requiredto file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements forthe past 90 days.  

[X]Yes  [ ] No

 

Indicateby check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted onits corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to besubmitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (232.405 of thischapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that theregistrant was required to submit and post such files). [ ] Yes  [ ] No

 

Indicateby check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, anaccelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reportingcompany.  See the definitions of “large accelerated filer”, “acceleratedfiler” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

 

 

Indicateby check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule12b-2 of the Exchange Act). [ ] Yes  [X] No
ROYAL
BODYCARE, INC.



Exhibit 99.1



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
of Royal BodyCare, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 14, 2003 (the Report), I, Clinton H. Howard, Chairman of the Board
and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, 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 Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | -- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. |  | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Clinton
H. Howard

Clinton H. Howard

Chairman of the Board

and

Chief Executive Officer

May 14, 2003



This certification is made solely for purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
subject to the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other purpose.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the Marriott
Residence Inn Limited Partnership condensed interim balance sheet and condensed
interim statement of operations as of and for the period ended September 8,
2000, and is qualified in itS entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. CURRENCY

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-08-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                   1.00
<CASH>                                          10,465
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,684
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,331
<PP&E>                                         200,511
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (62,599)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 153,392
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           32,472
<BONDS>                                         99,961
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      20,959
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   153,392
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                49,060
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                36,273
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,428
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,359
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,359
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
#### CARDELL FINANCIAL CORP. and Deltec Holdings, Inc., Petitioners-Appellees, v. SUCHODOLSKI ASSOCIATES, INC. and Consultora Worldstar S.A., Respondents-Appellants.

No. 10-226-CV.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Feb. 9, 2011.

Michael Evan Jaffe (David L. Kelleher, Jackson & Campbell, P.C., on the brief), Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLC, Washington, D.C., for Appellants.

John Martin O’Connor (Helen J. Williamson, on the brief), Anderson Kill & Olick, P.C., New York, NY, for Appellees.

PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge, PETER W. HALL, RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., Circuit Judges.

*SUMMARY ORDER*

Respondents-Appellants Suchodolski Associates, Inc. and Consultora WorldStar S.A. appeal from an amended judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Marrero, J.) confirming an arbitration award and injunctive relief in favor of PetitionersAppellees Cardell Financial Corp. and Deltec Holdings, Inc. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues presented for review.

“In reviewing a district court’s decision to confirm an arbitral award, we review findings of fact for clear error and conclusions of law *de novo.*” *Idea Nuova, Inc. v. GM Licensing Group, Inc.,*617 F.3d 177, 180 (2d Cir.2010). “It is well established that courts must grant an arbitration panel’s decision great deference.” *Duferco Int’l Steel Trading v. T. Klaveness Shipping A/S,*333 F.3d 383, 388 (2d Cir.2003). Manifest disregard of the law is evidenced only in “those exceedingly rare instances where some egregious impropriety on the part of the arbitrators is apparent.” *Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int’l*
      *459
      *Corp.,*548 F.3d 85, 91-92 (2d Cir.2008), *rev’d on other*grounds, --- U.S. ---, 130 S.Ct. 1758, 176 L.Ed.2d 605 (2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). The doctrine is “a mechanism to enforce the parties’ agreements to arbitrate rather than as judicial review of the arbitrators’ decision.” *Id.*at 95.

In order to find manifest disregard of the law: (1) we first “consider whether the law that was allegedly ignored was clear, and in fact explicitly applicable to the matter before the arbitrators,” *Duferco,*333 F.3d at 390; (2) we must then find that “the law was in fact improperly applied [by the Arbitrator], leading to an erroneous outcome,” *id.;*and finally (3) we determine whether “the arbitrator must have known of [the applicable law’s] existence, and its applicability to the problem before him,” *id.*With respect to the last element, “we impute only knowledge of governing law identified by the parties to the arbitration.” *Id.; see also Stolh-Nielsen,*548 F.3d at 93 (quoting the *Duferco*three-part test in its entirety).

After having reviewed Appellants’ contentions on appeal and the record of the proceedings below, we affirm for substantially the same reasons stated by the district court in its thorough opinion.

We have considered all of Appellants’ remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. For the foregoing reasons, the amended judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

Appeals of - )

)

Alpha Alps Construction Inc. ) ASBCA Nos. 63226, 63227

)

Under Contract No. W91B4N-21-P-0002 )

APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: Dr. Kooshan Alam

 Chief Operating Officer 

 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Dana J. Chase, Esq.

 Army Chief Trial Attorney

MAJ Ronald C. Walton, JA

MAJ Jason C. Coffey, JA

 Trial Attorneys

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The dispute has been settled. The appeals are dismissed with prejudice.

Dated: March 18, 2024

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed 

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA Nos. 63226, 63227, Appeals of Alpha 

Alps Construction Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board’s Charter.

Dated: March 19, 2024

 

CHRISTOPHER M. MCNULTY

Administrative Judge

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals

PAULLA K. GATES-LEWIS

Recorder, Armed Services

Board of Contract Appeals
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Olga BENITEZ, Also Known as Olga Osorio, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-10608

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Dec. 27, 2010.

Olga Benitez, Tallahassee, FL, pro se.

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Olga Benitez, federal prisoner # 31283-077, asks to proceed *in forma pauperis*(“IFp”) jn this appeal from the denial of her “motion to compel specific performanee of substantial assistance under Rule 35(b),” Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. “An appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). This court’s inquiry into good faith “is limited to whether the appeal involves ‘legal points arguable on their merits (and therefore not frivolous).’ ” *Howard v. King,*707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir.1983).

We may not review the government’s refusal to file a rule 35(b) motion unless its refusal is premised on an unconstitutional motive, such as race or religion, or the government has bargained away its discretion. *United States v. Grant,*493 F.3d 464, 467-68 (5th Cir.2007). Benitez has not contended in the district court or on appeal that the government’s failure to file was based on an unconstitutional motive. *See id.*at 467. She contends instead that the failure was arbitrary and without a rational basis. That contention is without merit. An “unadorned allegation of general arbitrariness” does not demonstrate that the government had an unconstitutional motive. *United States v. Urbani,*967 F.2d 106, 110 (5th Cir.1992).

Benitez asserts that she would not have agreed to cooperate without the government’s agreement to file a rule 35(b) motion. She contends that during post-conviction meetings among her attorney, an Assistant U.S. Attorney, and case agents, the government promised to file the motion and that an evidentiary hearing is necessary to develop those facts. Benitez’s contentions are not supported by the documents she filed in support of her motion. *See Grant,*493 F.3d at 467-68; *United States v. Edwards,*442 F.3d 258, 264 (5th Cir.2006) (stating that a movant *931seeking an evidentiary hearing must present independent indicia of the likely merit of his claims).

For the first time on appeal, Benitez contends that her attorney rendered ineffective assistance in failing to reduce the cooperation agreement to writing and in advising her improperly about rule 35 practice. There is no Sixth Amendment right to counsel during rule 35(b) proceedings. *United States v. Palomo,*80 F.3d 138, 140-42 (5th Cir.1996).

Because Benitez has not shown that her appeal will present a nonfrivolous issue, leave to proceed IFP is DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. *See Howard,*707 F.2d at 220; 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.
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.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Office of the Secretary

# ACTION:

Notice of Advisory Committee Meetings.

# SUMMARY:

The Defense Science Board (DSB) Task Force Precision Targeting will meet in closed session March 29-30, 2001; April 19-20, 2001; May 10-11, 2001; June 14-15, 2001; and July 26-27, 2001, at SAIC, 4001 N. Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA 22201. The Task Force will examine the full range of the precision weapons targeting in tactical military operations, from target execution, location, and identification through mission execution and damage assessment. Target types will include fixed installations and both transportable and mobile military force elements.

The mission of the Defense Science Board is to advise the Secretary of Defense and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology & Logistics on scientific and technical matters as they affect the perceived needs of the Department of Defense. The Task Force will review: all planned precision weapons programs and procurements to determine the degree to which these weapons are compatible with targeting requirements for different target classes; the degree to which existing and planned reconnaissance and surveillance assets are used to effectively develop target sets, real time targeting data and perform battle damage assessment under varied degrees of cover, concealment and deception; our ability to identify and precisely locate targets while minimizing false alarms using automatic target recognition techniques and precision location technologies; and our ability to attack moving targets.

In accordance with section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Pub. L. No. 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. II), it has been determined that these Defense Science Board meetings, concern matters listed in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1), and that accordingly these meetings will be closed to the public.

Dated: February 14, 2001.

L.M. Bynum,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 01-4335  Filed 2-21-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-10-M
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.3


                            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 Pioneer Companies, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Philip J. Ablove, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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 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.

/s/ Philip J. Ablove

Philip J. Ablove
Chief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2251 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2251

  To extend until January 1, 1997, the existing suspension of duty on 
                           fluazifop-p-butyl.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 25, 1993

Mr. Grandy (for himself and Mr. Castle) introduced the following bill; 
         which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To extend until January 1, 1997, the existing suspension of duty on 
                           fluazifop-p-butyl.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF EXISTING SUSPENSION OF DUTY ON FLUAZIFOP-P-
              BUTYL.

    Heading 9902.29.72 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 
States (relating to Butyl 2-[4-(5-trifluoromethyl-2-
pyridinyloxy)phenoxy]propanoate) is amended by striking ``12/31/92'' 
and inserting ``12/31/96''.

SEC. 2. APPLICABILITY.

    (a) In General.--The amendment made by section 1 shall take effect 
on the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
    (b) Retroactive Provision.--Notwithstanding section 514 of the 
Tariff Act of 1930 or any other provision of law to the contrary, upon 
a request filed with the appropriate customs officer before the 180th 
day after the date of the enactment of this Act, any entry or 
withdrawal from warehouse for consumption of goods to which the 
amendment made by section 1 applies and that was made--
            (1) after December 31, 1992; and
            (2) before the 15th day after the date of the enactment of 
        this Act;
and with respect to which there would have been a lower duty if the 
amendment made by section 1 had applied to such entry or withdrawal, 
shall be liquidated or reliquidated as though such entry or withdrawal 
had occurred on such 15th day.

                                 <all>
```
J-S57028-16

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

*Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Cour t. A.J.M.M.,

Appellee

v.

J.R.M., SR.,

Appellant :
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
: IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 73 WDA 2016

Appeal from the Order December 16, 2015 in the Court of Common Pleas of Crawford County, Domestic Relations, at No(s): D.R. No. 2011-537

BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., SHOGAN, and STRASSBUR GER, JJ.*

CONCURRING MEMORANDUM BY: STRASSBURGER, J.:

FILED: September 15, 2016

If I had been sitting as the trial judge, I likely would not have ordered

Father to pay for the extremely high equestrian exp enses.

However, our standard of review is abuse of discre tion, and I cannot

find that the trial judge abused his discretion. T his is especially true given

the age of the children, Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-5(b)(4), and the fact that Father

exercises no partial custody. See Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-4, Explanatory

Comment 2010 (“The basic support schedule incorpora tes an assumption

that the children spend 30% of the time with the ob ligor and that the obligor

makes direct expenditures on their behalf during th at time. ... Upward

deviation should be considered in cases in which th e obligor has little or no

contact with the children.”).J-S57028-16

- 2 -
<PAGE>   1
                                                                  EXHIBIT 10.15

                                    [IAC
                          IRVINE APARTMENT COMMUNITIES
                                  LETTERHEAD]

April 28, 1997


Richard E. Lamprecht
4 San Rafael Place
Laguna Niguel, CA 92656


Dear Rick:

Donald Bren and I are very pleased to promote you to the position of Division
President, Irvine Ranch Operations. This letter will confirm the terms of your
employment in this new role.

Position Title:     Division President, Irvine Ranch Operations

Effective Date:     April 25, 1997

Base Salary:        $16,667/month ($200,000 annual equivalency)

Cash Bonus:         For 1997 only, you will be guaranteed a cash bonus award of
                    $200,000 assuming continued employment through the
                    remainder of the year. In future years, you will be eligible
                    to earn an annual payment of 0-100% of your base salary,
                    based upon your performance and the Company's performance.

Stock Options:      In addition to the award of 10,000 stock options that you
                    received on February 4, 1997; you will be provided with
                    another 20,000 options awarded effective April 25, 1997 at
                    an exercise price of $26.625 per share. You will also be
                    provided with an annual award of 10,000 stock options in
                    each of the years 1998 through 2001 assuming continued
                    employment. As with your previous restricted stock award,
                    you will receive quarterly dividend payments for these new
                    shares.

Auto Allowance:     $700 per month.

Physical
  Examination:      You will be eligible for a periodic physical examination at
                    the Company's expense.

<PAGE>   2

Rick Lamprecht
Page Two


Benefits:           You will continue to participate in corporate fringe
                    benefits programs (health, life insurance, etc.) as
                    established by Company policy.

Your official acceptance of these terms of employment will be indicated by
signing and returning the duplicate of this letter to me. If you have any
questions, please do not hesitate to call. Congratulations again on your
expanded role in Irvine Apartment Communities.

Sincerely,


[SIG]

William H. McFarland
Director


I understand and accept that the terms of this employment letter are all
inclusive and supersede all other verbal or written discussions of my terms of
employment.

Signature:   [SIG]                                Date:   4-28-97
             ---------------------------------            ---------------------
             Richard E. Lamprecht