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

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-19-00194-CV

IN RE BRAYDEN CROOK AND JONATHAN CROOK

Original Proceeding

DISSENTING OPINION

In this proceeding, the Relators want us to set aside a gag order rendered by the 

trial court judge. The verified petition for a writ of mandamus states that the order was 

rendered against the Relators after an ex parte hearing on a motion for the gag order 

without notice or an opportunity to be heard. After the petition for writ of mandamus 

was filed, the Real Party in Interest moved the trial court for a clarification of the gag 

order. Again without notice and an opportunity to be heard, the trial court purported to 

clarify the gag order. It should be beyond dispute that such an order and clarification, 

even if alleged to be an emergency, should not have been rendered and then modified as 
In re Crook Page 2

a result of ex parte proceedings in which one side is deprived of the opportunity to present 

evidence, respond to evidence, or cross examine the party seeking the order. The Real 

Party in Interest attempts to justify the merits of the gag order based on the allegations 

that secured, and the findings made to justify, the gag order and its clarification. But 

what the Real Party in Interest does not defend, explain, or even respond to is why this 

order and clarification was sought or allowed to be obtained without notice and the 

opportunity to be heard at the hearing by the Relators. In fact, the Real Party in Interest 

asserts that in the 24 hours between the filing of the motion for clarification and the trial 

court signing the clarification order that “Relators failed to respond in any manner. No 

request for a special setting or request to file an opposition was made.” It was not the 

Relators’ motion. It was not their duty to request or obtain a setting on the Real Party in 

Interest’s motion or request leave to file a response. And until there was a setting, and 

notice thereof, the Relators had no realistic opportunity to even file a response, much less 

request a hearing on the Real Party in Interest’s motion.

To deny the Relators the most fundamental of procedural due process rights, 

notice and an opportunity to be heard on a hotly contested motion for a gag order, is 

clearly an abuse of discretion for which there is no effective remedy by appeal. There is 

no need to even get to the merits of the gag order, because the procedure engaged in to 

obtain it cannot justify allowing the order to remain in effect. I would grant the petition 

for writ of mandamus and issue the writ of mandamus to compel the trial court to 
In re Crook Page 3

immediately and without delay withdraw and set aside the gag order and purported 

clarification of the gag order. Because the Court denies the petition for writ of 

mandamus, thus leaving the trial court’s gag order and clarification in place, I 

respectfully dissent.

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice

Dissenting Opinion delivered and filed June 19, 2019

[OT06]
§ 646.11 What assurances and other information must an applicant include in an application? ( a ) An applicant must assure the Secretary in the application that— ( 1 ) Not less than two-thirds of the project participants will be— ( i ) Low-income individuals who are first generation college students; or
( ii ) Individuals with disabilities;
( 2 ) The remaining project participants will be low-income individuals, first generation college students, or individuals with disabilities; and
( 3 ) Not less than one-third of the individuals with disabilities served also will be low-income individuals.
( b ) The applicant must describe in the application its efforts, and where applicable, past history, in— ( 1 ) Providing sufficient financial assistance to meet the full financial need of each student in the project; and
( 2 ) Maintaining the loan burden of each student in the project at a manageable level.
( c ) The applicant must assure the Secretary in the application that a student will not be served by more than one SSS project at any one time and that the SSS project will collaborate with other SSS and McNair projects and other State and institutional programs at the grantee-institution so that more students can be served.
( d ) The applicant must assure the Secretary in the application that the institution's financial aid office will consult with the SSS project with respect to which SSS participants should receive grant aid and the amount of the grant aid awards.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1840-NEW5) (Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-14)
§ 32.1 Scope. ( a ) The Secretary establishes the standards and procedures in this part that apply to the deductions through offset from disposable pay of a current or former employee of the Department of Education to recover overpayments of pay or allowances.
( b ) This part does not apply to— ( 1 ) Recovery through offset of an indebtedness to the United States by an employee of the Department under a program administered by the Secretary of Education covered under 34 CFR part 31;
( 2 ) The offset of an indebtedness to the United States by a Federal employee to satisfy a judgment obtained by the United States against that employee in a court of the United States;
( 3 ) The offset of any payment to an employee of the Department of Education which is expressly allowed under statutes other than 5 U.S.C. 5514, except as to offsets of severance pay and/or lump sum annual leave payments as authorized under 31 U.S.C. 3716;
( 4 ) Offsets under 34 CFR part 30; or
( 5 ) An employee election of coverage or of a change of coverage under a Federal benefits program which requires periodic deductions from pay if the amount to be recovered was accumulated over four pay periods or less.
(Authority: 5 U.S.C. 5514; 31 U.S.C. 3716)
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY HIGH

 559

 577

 593

 594

 588

 586

 586

 588

 590

 591

 593

 597

 657

 771

 868

 925

 750

 784

 809

 794

 806

 812

 794

 790

 833

 817

 826

 789

 743

 742

 724

 548

 557

 576

 581

 581

 582

 583

 585

 586

 588

 590

 592

 598

 662

 750

 723

 655

 645

 631

 653

 588

 683

 586

 668

 670

 677

 645

 658

 632

 633

 644

 554

 568

 586

 588

 585

 584

 584

 586

 588

 590

 592

 594

 614

 709

 810

 851

 700

 704

 726

 725

 700

 744

 711

 737

 741

 739

 709

 711

 670

 671

 665

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

JANUARY 2012 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: February 16, 2012

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

TDS

 358

 367

 378

 379

 378

 377

 377

 378

 379

 381

 382

 383

 395

 454

 517

 542

 449

 451

 465

 464

 449

 476

 455

 471

 474

 473

 454

 455

 430

 431

 427

TOTAL 20,636

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

DELTA MENDOTA CANAL AT CHECK 21
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000789877
<NAME> CHINA CONTINENTAL, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> US DOLLARS ('000)
       
<S>                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                             963
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,343
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 4,991
<PP&E>                                             602
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  53,773
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           13,039
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,739
<OTHER-SE>                                      38,975
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    53,773
<SALES>                                         36,328
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                38,348
<CGS>                                           15,228
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   15,228
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,355
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 17,765
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (2,743)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             15,022
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    15,022
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .58
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .58
        



</TABLE>
### §90d–1. Contracts, leases, permits, or licenses for occupation or use of Federal lands in the park or recreation areas; continuation of privileges for original or extended term

Where any Federal lands included in the park or recreation areas are legally occupied or utilized on October 2, 1968, for any purpose, pursuant to a contract, lease, permit, or license issued or authorized by any department, establishment, or agency of the United States, the Secretary shall permit the persons holding such privileges to continue in the exercise thereof, subject to the terms and conditions thereof, for the remainder of the term of the contract, lease, permit, or license or for such longer period of time as the Secretary deems appropriate.

(Pub. L. 90–544, title V, §502, Oct. 2, 1968, 82 Stat. 929.)
### §799. Violation of regulations of National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Whoever willfully shall violate, attempt to violate, or conspire to violate any regulation or order promulgated by the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for the protection or security of any laboratory, station, base or other facility, or part thereof, or any aircraft, missile, spacecraft, or similar vehicle, or part thereof, or other property or equipment in the custody of the Administration, or any real or personal property or equipment in the custody of any contractor under any contract with the Administration or any subcontractor of any such contractor, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

(Added Pub. L. 85–568, title III, §304(c)(1), July 29, 1958, 72 Stat. 434; amended Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, §330016(1)(K), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1994—Pub. L. 103–322 substituted "fined under this title" for "fined not more than $5,000".
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY HIGH

 511

 569

 481

 476

 520

 494

 530

 574

 571

 591

 574

 560

 584

 533

 520

 480

 472

 417

 467

 471

 493

 614

 612

 651

 674

 630

 595

 611

 522

 517

 523

 202

 203

 211

 208

 206

 212

 208

 206

 194

 196

 192

 192

 200

 201

 200

 200

 195

 203

 196

 198

 198

 205

 208

 208

 217

 210

 202

 213

 216

 229

 220

 259

 263

 268

 271

 274

 264

 253

 261

 262

 263

 268

 263

 272

 262

 260

 265

 257

 255

 257

 250

 249

 275

 278

 290

 306

 295

 286

 287

 281

 291

 293

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

AUGUST 2003 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE:September 2, 2003

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

TDS

 176

 179

 182

 183

 185

 179

 172

 177

 178

 179

 182

 179

 184

 178

 177

 180

 175

 174

 175

 171

 170

 186

 188

 195

 205

 198

 193

 193

 190

 196

 197

TOTAL 8,378

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

DELTA MENDOTA CANAL AT HEADWORKS
Filed by Bowne Pure Compliance



 




Exhibit 10.4




2007 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN

OF

SPECIALTY UNDERWRITERS’ ALLIANCE, INC.




RESTRICTED STOCK AGREEMENT




This
confirms that on ___, 20___ (the “Award Date”),
___ (the “Recipient”) was granted a restricted stock award with respect to
3,000 shares (the “Shares”) of the common stock of Specialty Underwriters’ Alliance, Inc. (the
“Company”), pursuant to the terms of the 2007 Stock Incentive Plan of Specialty Underwriters’
Alliance, Inc. (the “Plan”) (which terms are hereby incorporated by reference).



The Shares are fully vested as of the Award Date, and are subject only to any applicable
restrictions or conditions under the requirements of the stock exchange upon which the Shares or
shares of the same class are listed, and under any securities law applicable to the Shares.



WITNESS the signature of the Company’s duly authorized officer as of the date first written
above. By countersigning below, the Recipient acknowledges receipt of this agreement and the
Shares.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	SPECIALTY UNDERWRITERS’ ALLIANCE, INC.

 	 
	 	By:  	
 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 



Acknowledged:




	 	 	 
	 

[Name of Recipient]

	 	 






 


1
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6226

PRENTISS PICKENS EMMONS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (CA-04-366-7) Submitted: July 27, 2005 Decided: August 3, 2005 Before KING, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Prentiss Pickens Emmons, Appellant Pro Se. Virginia Bidwell Theisen, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Prentiss Pickens Emmons seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by a district court absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Emmons has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
# Materials Not Included in Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket

Docket Number: FAA
- 2016 - 3704 Directorate Identifier: 2016NM005AD

AOT
- CN235
- 27 - 0002 --- 10/23/2014 AOT
- C295
- 27 - 0001 --- 10/23/2014

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the Supplemental AD Docket



### MAY BE VIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration Transport Airplane Directorate Rules Docket 1601 Lind Ave. SW., Renton, WA 98057 425.227.1221 DURING THE HOURS OF: 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Form Date: 03/05/2008
(No. 78-CC-1189

#### Arthur J. Inman, Claimant, *v.*State of Illinois, Respondent.

*Order filed October 23, 1978.*

This cause coming on to be heard on the motion of the Respondent and the Court being fully advised in the premises find that the legislature has failed to appropriate funds for the purpose of paying the type of *785fee claimed herein.

Chapter 38, Section 1005-2-4 (c) (2) provides as follows:

> “(2) Upon filing with the Court of a verified statement of legal services rendered by the private attorney appointed pursuant to paragraph (1) of this sub-section, the Court shall determine a reasonable fee for such services. If the defendant is unable to pay the fee, the Court shall enter an order upon the State to pay the entire fee or such amount as defendant is unable to pay *from funds appropriated by the General Assembly for that purpose.”*(Emphasis added)

The statute is clear that the fee claimed herein may be awarded only from funds appropriated by the General Assembly for that purpose and inasmuch as funds were not appropriated there can be no award.

It is therefore ordered that this case be and the same is hereby dismissed.
#### § 76.662 Construction.

###### Cross Reference

Link to an amendment published at 89 FR 70339, Aug. 29, 2024.

A subgrantee shall insure that program funds are not used for the construction of private school facilities.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3 and 3474)
### §450rr. R.M.S. Titanic; international maritime memorial; findings and purposes

#### (a) Findings

The Congress finds that—

(1) the R.M.S. Titanic, the ocean liner which sank on her maiden voyage after striking an iceberg on April 14, 1912, should be designated as an international maritime memorial to the men, women, and children who perished aboard her;

(2) the recent discovery of the R.M.S. Titanic, lying more than twelve thousand feet beneath the ocean surface, demonstrates the practical applications of ocean science and engineering;

(3) the R.M.S. Titanic, well preserved in the cold, oxygen-poor waters of the deep North Atlantic Ocean, is of major national and international cultural and historical significance, and merits appropriate international protection; and

(4) the R.M.S. Titanic represents a special opportunity for deep ocean scientific research and exploration.

#### (b) Purposes

The Congress declares that the purposes of sections 450rr to 450rr–6 of this title are—

(1) to encourage international efforts to designate the R.M.S. Titanic as an international maritime memorial to those who lost their lives aboard her in 1912;

(2) to direct the United States to enter into negotiations with other interested nations to establish an international agreement which will provide for the designation of the R.M.S. Titanic as an international maritime memorial, and protect the scientific, cultural, and historical significance of the R.M.S. Titanic;

(3) to encourage, in those negotiations or in other fora, the development and implementation of international guidelines for conducting research on, exploration of, and if appropriate, salvage of the R.M.S. Titanic; and

(4) to express the sense of the United States Congress that, pending such international agreement or guidelines, no person should physically alter, disturb, or salvage the R.M.S. Titanic in any research or exploratory activities which are conducted.

(Pub. L. 99–513, §2, Oct. 21, 1986, 100 Stat. 2082.)

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Short Title

Pub. L. 99–513, §1, Oct. 21, 1986, 100 Stat. 2082, provided that: "This Act [enacting this section and sections 450rr–1 to 450rr–6 of this title] may be cited as the 'R.M.S. Titanic Maritime Memorial Act of 1986'."
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         646,306
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  700,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,425,006
<PP&E>                                          27,350
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,963,510
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          497,496
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,140
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,027,374
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,963,510
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,050
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   78,300
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,275,600
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              30,480
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,380,330)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,380,330)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,380,330)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

         In connection with the Annual Report of VitalStream Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Paul S. Summers, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Subsection 1350, as adopted pursuant to Subsection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:
Exhibit 24.1

POWER OF ATTORNEY

      KNOW ALL  PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS, that each officer and/or director of
EnSurge, Inc. whose  signature  appears below constitutes and appoints Scott R.
Hosking, as his true and lawful attorney-in-fact  and agent, with full power of
substitution and resubstitution, for him and in his  name,  place and stead, in
any and all capacities, to sign in the name of or on behalf of the undersigned,
as a director of said corporation, the Annual Report on Form  10-K  of EnSurge,
Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2000, and any and all amendments  to  such
Annual  Report,  and  to  file  the  same  with all exhibits thereto, and other
documents in connection therewith, with the  Securities and Exchange Commission
granting unto said attorney-in-fact and agent,  full  power and authority to do
and perform each and every act and thing requisite and  necessary to be done in
connection therewith, as fully to all intents and purposes as he might or could
do  in  person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that said  attorney-in-fact
and agent,  or  his  substitute  or substitutes, may lawfully do or cause to be
done by virtue hereof.

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned  have executed this Power of Attorney
this 30th day of April, 2004.


/s/  Jeff A. Hanks
_________________________________      President and Chief Financial Officer,
JEFF A. HANKS