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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         412,821
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                       2,290,684
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                  6,986,925
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                       3,370,486
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                         3,410,205
<LOANS>                                     90,535,772
<ALLOWANCE>                                    301,867
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             106,121,301
<DEPOSITS>                                  83,837,056
<SHORT-TERM>                                 7,000,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            932,618
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     5,189,900
<OTHER-SE>                                   9,161,727
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             106,121,301
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              3,848,379
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              251,648
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               100,588
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             4,200,615
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           2,069,447
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,203,608
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        1,997,007
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                997,038
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,097,873
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   1,097,873
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   672,253
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.79
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.72
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    9.80
<LOANS-NON>                                    375,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               301,867
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              301,867
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           301,867
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“W hen denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not 1

required to do so.”); TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).

NUMBERS 13-09-00489-CR, 13-09-00490-CR,

13-09-00491-CR, & 13-09-00492-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN RE ARMANDO RAMOS

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Rodriguez, Garza, and Vela

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion1

Relator, Armando Ramos, pro se, filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the above

causes on August 24, 2009, through which he contends that the trial court erred in ordering

consecutive sentences for his convictions in 1990 for sexual assault and aggravated sexual

assault of a child. The Court requested and received a response to the petition for writ of
2

mandamus from the State of Texas, acting by and through the District Attorney for

Cameron County, Texas.

Mandamus relief may be granted if the relator shows that: (1) the act sought to be

compelled is purely ministerial; and (2) there is no adequate remedy at law. See Deleon

v. Dist. Clerk, 187 S.W.3d 473, 474 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (orig. proceeding). The relator

must have a “clear right” to the relief sought and the merits of the relief sought must be

“beyond dispute.” See id. “The requirement of a clear legal right necessitates that the law

plainly describes the duty to be performed such that there is no room for the exercise of

discretion.” See id.

The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus

and the reply thereto, is of the opinion that relator has not shown himself entitled to the

relief sought. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED. See TEX.R.APP.

P. 52.8(a). 

PER CURIAM

Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Memorandum Opinion delivered and 

filed this 18th day of September, 2009.
POWER OF ATTORNEY


The undersigned hereby constitutes and appoints each of Margaret M. Foran, Gene
  A. Capello, Lawrence A. Fox and Claire G. Keyles as his true and lawful attorney-in-fact
  and agent, and grants each of them full power to act on behalf of the undersigned
  and in his name, place and stead, in any and all capacities, for the purpose
  of completing and signing, on his behalf,

- any Form 3, Form 4 or Form 5 required or permitted to be filed by him pursuant
  to Section 16 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange
  Act"), 
  - any and all other documents, including, without limitation, Form ID, necessary
  or desirable to facilitate the filing by him of forms under Section 16 of the
  Exchange Act, and 
  - any Form 144 required to be filed by him under the Securities Act of 1933,
  as amended (the "Securities Act"), and Rule 144 promulgated thereunder,
  
  with regard to the undersigned's ownership of or transactions in securities
  of Pfizer Inc., including, without limitation, the power to complete and sign
  any and all amendments to such forms and documents, if any, and to file such
  forms and documents and amendments thereto with the Securities and Exchange
  Commission, and to do and perform each and every act and thing requisite or
  necessary to be done in connection with such forms and documents, as fully and
  to all intents and purposes as the undersigned might or could do in person.

The authority of Margaret M. Foran, Gene A. Capello, Lawrence A. Fox and Claire
  G. Keyles under this Power of Attorney shall continue until the undersigned
  is no longer required to file Form 3, Form 4, Form 5 or Form 144 with regard
  to the undersigned's ownership of or transactions in securities of Pfizer Inc.,
  unless earlier revoked in writing. The undersigned acknowledges that Margaret
  M. Foran, Gene A. Capello, Lawrence A. Fox and Claire G. Keyles are not assuming
  any of the undersigned's responsibilities to comply with Rule 144 under the
  Securities Act or Section 16 of the Exchange Act.

Signature:/s/Martin Mackay
  Martin Mackay

Date:10/10/2007
Order entered October 7 , 2021

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 21

- 00658

- CV

BRADLEY B. MILLER , Appellant

V.

DANIELLE DIAZ AND DALLAS COUNTY , Appellee s

On Appeal fr om the 116th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 20

- 15614

O RDER

Before the Court is appellees’ October 4, 2021 unopposed motion to extend

time to file their brief on the merits . We GRANT the motion and extend the time

to October 12, 2021

.

/s/ CRAIG SMITH JUSTICE
2009-2355.

#### In re Adoption of G.V.

Lucas App. No. L-09-1160, 2009-Ohio-6338. On motion for admission pro hac vice of Mary Beck by Susan Garner Eisenman. Motion granted.
2009-1913.

#### Thompson v. State.

In Habeas Corpus. On petition for writ of habeas corpus of Ivan W. Thompson. Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

Moyer, C.J., and Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, and Cupp, JJ., concur.

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS
Exhibit 35.2

[LOGO]
Homecomings Financial
A GMAC Company


                    SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT (Item 1123)

                           Homecomings Financial, LLC

                   GSR Trust 2007-HEL1 (the "Issuing Entity")


The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Homecomings Financial, LLC, as
servicer (the "Servicer"), does hereby certify that:

1. A review of the Servicer's activities during the period covered by the
Issuing Entity's report on Form 10-K and of the Servicer's performance under the
applicable servicing agreement has been made under my supervision.

2. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled
all of its obligations under the applicable servicing agreement in all material
respects throughout such period.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 17th
day of March 2008.


By: /s/ Anthony N. Renzi
    --------------------------
    Name:  Anthony N. Renzi
    Title: Managing Director
#### Bayswater Development LLC et al., Appellants-Respondents, v Admiral Insurance Company et al., Respondents-Appellants.

[5 NYS3d 407]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan M. Kenney, J.), entered October 22, 2013, which denied plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment declaring that the defendant insurers owe them a duty to defend and indemnify, granted the portions of defendants’ motions for summary judgment that seek declarations that the pollution exclusions should be interpreted in accordance with Florida substantive law, denied the portion of defendants’ cross motions that seek a declaration that plaintiffs Bayswater Brokerage Florida LLC and Bayswater Development Florida LLC are not named insureds or additional insureds under the policies, and granted the portion of defendant Admiral’s cross motion that seeks dismissal of the other plaintiffs’ causes of action on default and as moot, unanimously modified, on the law, to declare that the defendant insurers have no duty to defend or indemnify plaintiffs, pursuant to the policies’ pollution exclusion, and that defendants’ disclaimers were timely as to plaintiffs Bayswater Brokerage Florida LLC and Bayswater Development Florida LLC, and otherwise affirmed, without costs. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

In this action seeking a declaration that defendants Admiral and American Empire are obligated to defend and indemnify *491plaintiffs in connection with claims arising out of damage purportedly caused by the use of “Chinese Drywall” at various residences located in Florida, New York’s choice-of-law analysis applies *(see Lerner v Prince,*119 AD3d 122, 127 [1st Dept 2014]). Under the insurance policies at issue, the insured risks are not national in scope, as the insured homes, alleged damages, resulting claims, and pending litigation are all Florida-based. On a balancing of the relevant factors, Florida has a more significant relationship to this matter than New York, and the motion court’s conclusion that Florida is the state “with the most significant contacts with the matter in dispute,” such that Florida law controls, was correct *(see Zurich Ins. Co. v Shearson Lehman Hutton,*84 NY2d 309, 317 [1994]).

Courts in Florida have consistently held that pollution exclusions, such as those contained in the Admiral and American Empire policies, preclude coverage for damage caused by “Chinese Drywall” claims *(see e.g. Deni Assoc. of Florida, Inc. v State Farm Fire & Cas. Ins. Co.,*711 So 2d 1135, 1136-1140 [Fla 1998]; *General Fid. Ins. Co. v Foster,*808 F Supp 2d 1315, 1319-1321 [SD Fla 2011]).

Even if issues of fact exist as to whether Bayswater Brokerage Florida and Bayswater Development Florida should have been added as named insureds to the policies, the April 9, 2010 coverage letter provided by American Empire and the April 12, 2010 coverage letter provided by Admiral provided notice of the insurers’ coverage positions *(see*Fla Stat § 627.426 [2] [a]; *Lazzara Oil Co. v Columbia Cas. Co.,*683 F Supp 777, 783 [MD Fla 1988], *affd*868 F2d 1274 [11th Cir 1989]).

Concur— Gonzalez, P.J., Tom, Richter, Manzanet-Daniels and Kapnick, JJ.
|    |                                                                                         |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 1. | I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Petroleum Development Corporation. |

|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 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:  | May 18, 2011 |   | /s/ Gysle R. Shellum |
|   |   |   | Gysle R. Shellum |
|   |   |   | Chief Financial Officer |
Exhibit 99
**AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO RIGHTS AGREEMENT

Amendment No. 1, dated as of December 2, 2003 to the Rights Agreement dated as of October 6, 1997 (the "Agreement"), between Pfizer Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), and Mellon Investor Services LLC (successor to ChaseMellon Shareholder Services, L.L.C.), a New Jersey limited liability company, as rights agent (the "Rights Agent").

The Company has approved the amendment to the Agreement set forth below.  Accordingly, in consideration of the premises and mutual agreements herein set forth, the parties hereby agree as follows:

FIRST:	Section 7(a) of the Agreement is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:

"(a)	The Rights shall not be exercisable until, but shall become exercisable on, the Distribution Date, unless otherwise provided herein, including, without limitation, the restrictions on exercisability set forth in Section 23(a) hereof.  The Rights may be exercised, in whole or in part, upon surrender of the Right Certificate, with the form of election to purchase and certificate on the back thereof duly executed (with signatures duly guaranteed), to the Rights Agent at the office of the Rights Agent designated for such purpose, together with payment of the Exercise Price with respect to each Right exercised, subject to adjustment as hereinafter provided.  Such exercise will be permitted only on and after the Distribution Date and at or prior to the close of business on the earlier of (i) December 31, 2003 (the "Final Expiration Date") or (ii) the date on which the Rights are redeemed as provided in Section 23 hereof (such earlier date being herein referred to as the "Expiration Date")."

SECOND:	This Amendment shall be effective as of the date hereof. 

THIRD:	Except as set forth above, the provisions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

FOURTH:	This Amendment shall be deemed to be a contract made under the laws of the State of Delaware and for all purposes shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of such state applicable to contracts to be made and performed entirely within such state.  This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of such counterparts shall for all purposes be deemed to be an original, and all such counterparts shall together constitute but one and the same instrument.  If any term, provision, covenant or restriction of this Amendment is held by a court of competent jurisdiction or other authority to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable, the remainder of the terms, provisions, covenants and restrictions of this Amendment shall remain in full force and effect and shall in no way be affected, implied or invalidated.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be duly executed as of the day and year first above written.
 
PFIZER INC.

  
By:	/s/Margaret M. Foran**
**EXHIBIT32.1**

 

**Certification**

**Pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

**(Subsections(a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)**

 

In connection with the QuarterlyReport on Form 10-QSB of Pressure BioSciences, Inc., a Massachusettscorporation (the “Company”) for the period ended June 30, 2005 as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the  “Report”), I, Richard T. Schumacher, President and Chief Executive Officer ofPressure BioSciences, Inc., a Massachusetts corporation (the “Company”), dohereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002(subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United StatesCode) that:

 

(1)           The Report of the Company fully complies with therequirements 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 results of operations ofthe Company.

 

 
| Dated: August 15, 2005 | */s/  Richard T. Schumacher*           |   |
|------------------------|----------------------------------------|--------|
|                   | Richard T. Schumacher                  |
|                   | President and Chief  Executive Officer |
|                   | (Principal Executive  Officer)         |

 

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Pressure BioSciences,Inc.  and will be retained by PressureBioSciences, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission orits staff upon request.

 

1

----
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rafael BETANCOURT-GUILLEN, also known as Miguel Cervantes, also known as Juan Jose Gonzalez, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-40956

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

March 7, 2007.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern Dis*362trict of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before KING, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Rafael B etancourt-Guillen raises arguments that are foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2658

To direct the Secretary of Transportation to establish a program to evaluate

the technological feasibility and environmental benefits of having tank

vessels carry oil spill prevention and response technology.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 15, 1993

Mr. TAUZIN (for himself and Mr. LANCASTER) introduced the following bill;

which was referred to the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries

A BILL

To direct the Secretary of Transportation to establish a

program to evaluate the technological feasibility and environmental benefits of having tank vessels carry oil spill

prevention and response technology.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. OIL SPILL PREVENTION AND RESPONSE TECH4 NOLOGY TEST AND EVALUATION PROGRAM.

5 (a) Not later than 6 months after the date of enact6 ment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall

7 establish a program to evaluate the technological feasibil8 ity and environmental benefits of having tank vessels carry
2

•HR 2658 IH

1 oil spill prevention and response technology. To implement

2 the program the Secretary shall—

3 (1) publish in the Federal Register an invita4 tion for submission of proposals including plans and

5 procedures for testing; and

6 (2) review and evaluate technology using, to the

7 maximum extent possible, existing evaluation and

8 performance standards.

9 (b) The Secretary shall, to the maximum extent pos10 sible, incorporate in the program established under sub11 section (a), the results of existing studies and evaluations

12 of oil spill prevention and response technology carried on

13 tank vessels.

14 (c) Not later than 2 years after the date of the enact15 ment of this Act, the Secretary shall evaluate the results

16 of the program established under subsection (a) and sub17 mit a report to the Congress with recommendations on the

18 feasibility and environmental benefits of, and appropriate

19 equipment and utilization standards for, requiring tank

20 vessels to carry oil spill prevention and response equip21 ment.

22 (d) Not later than 6 months after the date of the

23 enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall evaluate and

24 report to the Congress on the feasibility of using seg-
3

•HR 2658 IH

1 regated ballast tanks for emergency transfer of cargo and

2 storage of recovered oil.

Æ
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.                  

###### Commission on Civil Rights

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights that a meeting of the Mississippi Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene at 6:00 p.m. and adjourn at 8:00 p.m. on March 12, 2001, at the Crowne Plaza Hotel, 200 East Amite, Jackson, Mississippi 39201. The purpose of the meeting is to plan for future projects. 

Persons desiring additional information, or planning a presentation to the Committee, should contact Melvin L. Jenkins, Director of the Central Regional Office, 913-551-1400 (TDD 913-551-1414). Hearing-impaired persons who will attend the meeting and require the services of a sign language interpreter should contact the Regional Office at least ten (10) working days before the scheduled date of the meeting. 

The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the Commission. 

Dated at Washington, DC, February 26, 2001. 

Edward A. Hailes, Jr., 

General Counsel. 

[FR Doc. 01-5121 Filed 3-1-01; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6335-01-P