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

DAY HIGH

 2,191

 2,154

 2,101

 1,969

 2,053

 1,909

 1,869

 1,934

 2,025

 2,348

 2,144

 2,084

 2,078

 1,979

 1,810

 1,689

 1,532

 1,340

 1,355

 1,415

 1,423

 1,332

 1,359

 1,549

 1,530

 1,452

 1,289

 1,266

 1,241

 1,250

 1,182

 1,218

 1,161

 1,172

 1,180

 1,169

 1,148

 1,154

 1,151

 1,157

 1,183

 924

 958

 924

 912

 909

 847

 807

 824

 812

 813

 793

 736

 733

 743

 643

 560

 650

 664

 673

 1,597

 1,556

 1,525

 1,461

 1,427

 1,400

 1,396

 1,438

 1,430

 1,525

 1,443

 1,324

 1,303

 1,258

 1,212

 1,137

 1,076

 1,013

 1,004

 1,023

 1,015

 960

 917

 945

 965

 928

 858

 858

 865

 849

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

SEPTEMBER 2013 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: February 20, 2014

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

14 DAY

ACCUM

MEAN

14 DAY

AVG

MEAN

 20,326

 20,640

 20,772

 20,774

 20,763

 20,745

 20,709

 20,734

 20,784

 20,888

 20,838

 20,628

 20,401

 20,083

 19,698

 19,279

 18,830

 18,382

 17,959

 17,582

 17,201

 16,723

 16,210

 15,630

 15,152

 14,756

 14,311

 13,911

 13,564

 13,276

 1,452

 1,474

 1,484

 1,484

 1,483

 1,482

 1,479

 1,481

 1,485

 1,492

 1,488

 1,473

 1,457

 1,435

 1,407

 1,377

 1,345

 1,313

 1,283

 1,256

 1,229

 1,195

 1,158

 1,116

 1,082

 1,054

 1,022

 994

 969

 948

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

JERSEY POINT TOP ON THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER
EX-10.3


 Exhibit 10.3 

AMENDMENT TO FRANK’S INTERNATIONAL N.V. 

RESTRICTED STOCK UNIT (RSU) AGREEMENT 

REGARDING THE AUGUST, 2013 STOCK AWARD 

This Amendment to Frank’s International N.V. Restricted Stock Unit (RSU) Agreement (“Agreement”) Regarding the August, 2013
Stock Award is entered into pursuant to Section 10 of the Agreement by the undersigned employee (hereinafter “Employee”, “You” or “Your”) and Frank’s International N.V. (hereinafter “Frank’s”).
You agree to the terms of this Amendment in consideration of the following: 
 1. Consideration. After your voluntary termination of employment with
Frank’s ends on                             , you will receive: 

 

	 	a.	Accelerated vesting of any Restricted Stock Units (RSUs) previously awarded in August, 2013 as if you had retired per Section 3(b) of the Agreement. 


2. Non-Competition. In exchange for the above consideration, you hereby agree that you are subject to the terms of the document entitled Exhibit A
Non-Competition and Non-Solicitation Applicable Upon Retirement (“Exhibit A”) attached to the Agreement to the same extent as if your termination satisfied the definition of “retirement” as set forth in Section 2(e) of the
Agreement. In the event of a violation by you of Exhibit A, you acknowledge that you must repay to Frank’s in full the monetary value of RSUs awarded to you as a result of this Amendment, as well as any other relief provided to Frank’s in
Exhibit A. 
 3. Separation and General Release Agreement. This Amendment is being provided to you pursuant to the terms of that certain Separation
and General Release Agreement (“Separation Agreement”) between you and Frank’s International, LLC (“Employer”) with respect to the end of your employment with Employer. This Amendment shall be deemed an attachment to the
Separation Agreement, and the review and revocation periods, as applicable, set forth in the Separation Agreement shall apply with respect to this Amendment. 

 

			
	FRANK’S INTERNATIONAL N.V.
		
	By:	 	 
		 	Name:
		 	Title:


  

			
	EMPLOYEE
	
	 
	Print Name:
Editorial Note on Part 28
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 28 appear by T.D. ATF-477, 67 FR 18087 through 18090, Apr. 15, 2002.

§ 28.56 Disapproval of bonds or consents of surety. The appropriate TTB officer may disapprove any bond prescribed by this part, or any consent of surety submitted in respect thereto, if the principal or any person owning, controlling, or actively participating in the management of the business of the principal shall have been previously convicted, in a court of competent jurisdiction, of: ( a ) Any fraudulent noncompliance with any provision of any law of the United States, if such provision related to internal revenue or customs taxation of spirits, wines, or beer, or if such offense shall have been compromised with the person on payment of penalties or otherwise; or
( b ) Any felony under a law of any State, Territory, or the District of Columbia, or the United States, prohibiting the manufacture, sale, importation, or transportation of spirits, wine, beer, or other intoxicating liquor.
(72 Stat. 1336, 1352, 1353, 1394; 26 U.S.C. 5062, 5175, 5177, 5551)
[25 FR 5734, June 23, 1960. Redesignated at 40 FR 16835, Apr. 15, 1975, and amended by T.D. ATF-62, 44 FR 71721, Dec. 11, 1979; T.D. TTB-8, 69 FR 3832, Jan. 27, 2004]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Seattle
Filmworks, Inc. 1997 10-K and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-27-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-29-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-27-1997
<CASH>                                          15,314
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,680<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      8,998
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                29,259
<PP&E>                                           7,564<F1>
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  51,366
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,371
<BONDS>                                              0 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0 
<PREFERRED>                                          0 
<COMMON>                                           164
<OTHER-SE>                                      37,437
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    51,366
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               101,189
<CGS>                                           58,624
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   27,752
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (574)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 15,387
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,242
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0 
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0 
<CHANGES>                                            0 
<NET-INCOME>                                    10,145
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .57
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .57
<FN>
<F1>ASSET VALUES REPRESENT NET AMOUNTS
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
### §1087ii. Definitions

#### (a) Low-income communities

For the purpose of this part, the term "low-income communities" means communities in which there is a high concentration of children eligible to be counted under section 6333(c) of this title.

#### (b) High-risk children

For the purposes of this part, the term "high-risk children" means individuals under the age of 21 who are low-income or at risk of abuse or neglect, have been abused or neglected, have serious emotional, mental, or behavioral disturbances, reside in placements outside their homes, or are involved in the juvenile justice system.

#### (c) Infants, toddlers, children, and youth with disabilities

For purposes of this part, the term "infants, toddlers, children, and youth with disabilities" means children with disabilities and infants and toddlers with disabilities as defined in sections 1401 and 1432 of this title, respectively, and the term "early intervention services" has the meaning given the term in section 1432 of this title.

(Pub. L. 89–329, title IV, §469, as added Pub. L. 102–325, title IV, §465(d), July 23, 1992, 106 Stat. 583; amended Pub. L. 103–382, title III, §391(e)(4), Oct. 20, 1994, 108 Stat. 4022; Pub. L. 108–446, title III, §305(c)(2), Dec. 3, 2004, 118 Stat. 2805; Pub. L. 111–39, title IV, §405(7), July 1, 2009, 123 Stat. 1947; Pub. L. 114–95, title IX, §9215(oo)(9), Dec. 10, 2015, 129 Stat. 2180.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2015—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 114–95 substituted "eligible to be counted under section 6333(c) of this title" for "eligible to be counted under title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965".

2009—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 111–39 substituted "and the term 'early intervention services' has the meaning given the term in section 1432 of this title." for "and the term 'qualified professional provider of early intervention services' has the meaning specified in section 1472(2) of this title."

2004—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 108–446 substituted "sections 1401 and 1432" for "sections 1401(a)(1) and 1472(1)".

1994—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 103–382 substituted "title I" for "chapter 1 of title I".

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

#### Effective Date of 2015 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 114–95 effective Dec. 10, 2015, except with respect to certain noncompetitive programs and competitive programs, see section 5 of Pub. L. 114–95, set out as a note under section 6301 of this title.

#### Effective Date of 2009 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 111–39 effective as if enacted on the date of enactment of Pub. L. 110–315 (Aug. 14, 2008), see section 3 of Pub. L. 111–39, set out as a note under section 1001 of this title.
### §130aa–5. Authorization of appropriations

There is authorized to be appropriated $2,000,000 for the purposes authorized under section 130aa–1 of this title. Funds appropriated under this section shall remain available until expended.

(Pub. L. 98–480, title II, §207, Oct. 17, 1984, 98 Stat. 2247.)
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

DAY ELEV

 519.85

 519.70

 519.53

 519.52

 519.58

 519.86

 520.31

 520.61

 521.03

 521.50

 522.51

 523.64

 524.43

 524.79

 524.92

 524.96

 524.96

 524.96

 524.96

 524.98

 524.96

 525.00

 525.07

 525.14

 525.20

 525.30

 525.40

 525.42

 525.44

 525.53

 278.9

 278.3

 277.8

 277.7

 277.9

 278.9

 280.4

 281.5

 282.9

 284.5

 288.1

 292.0

 294.8

 296.1

 296.5

 296.7

 296.7

 296.7

 296.7

 296.8

 296.7

 296.8

 297.1

 297.3

 297.5

 297.9

 298.3

 298.3

 298.4

 298.7

STORAGE

-0.7

-0.5

-0.6

+0.0

+0.2

+1.0

+1.5

+1.0

+1.4

+1.6

+3.5

+4.0

+2.8

+1.3

+0.5

+0.1

+0.0

+0.0

+0.0

+0.1

-0.1

+0.1

+0.3

+0.3

+0.2

+0.4

+0.4

+0.1

+0.1

+0.3

CHANGE

1,494

1,508

1,390

1,439

1,290

1,427

1,581

1,274

1,465

1,515

2,462

2,711

2,198

1,437

905

681

608

581

575

606

535

580

591

588

569

644

730

644

590

673

INFLOW

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

MADERA

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

SPILL

 1,465

 1,400

 1,295

 1,102

 831

 711

 679

 623

 600

 567

 544

 583

 663

 672

 564

 501

 501

 475

 456

 456

 456

 395

 351

 351

 351

 352

 439

 501

 442

 400

FRIANT-KERN

 23

 16

 38

 4

 6

 17

 3

 11

 16

 7

 25

 6

 2

 13

 8

 7

 6

 5

 14

 6

 7

 7

 9

 6

 5

 7

 6

 2

 9

 9

C.F.S.

 .21

 .14

 .34

 .04

 .05

 .15

 .03

 .10

 .14

 .06

 .22

 .05

 .02

 .11

 .07

 .06

 .05

 .04

 .12

 .05

 .06

 .06

 .08

 .05

 .04

 .06

 .05

 .02

 .08

 .08

INCHES

 .00

 .00

 .15

 .00

 .42

 .02

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .13

 .02

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .14

 .19

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

PRECIP

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

NOVEMBER 2011 MILLERTON LAKE DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: December 1, 2011

IN LAKE

EVAPORATION

INCHES

C.F.S.

COMPUTED*

1000 ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S. 

TOTALS +19.2 33,291 0 18,726 0 300 2.63 1.07

ACRE-FEET +19,182 66,033 0 37,143 0 595

COMMENTS:

* COMPUTED INFLOW IS THE SUM OF CHANGE IN STORAGE, RELEASES, PUMPING AND EVAPORATION.

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

CANALS

FRIANT-KERN

MADERA

 37,143

 0 46,255

PRECIPITATION

THIS MONTH =

JULY 1, 2011 TO DATE = 2.38

 279.5

 9,112 1.07

CANALS

AT FRIANT

TOTAL RELEASES

OUTLET

 351

 351

 350

 350

 350

 216

 120

 120

 120

 120

 121

 124

 126

 109

 101

 101

 101

 101

 105

 108

 108

 106

 105

 105

 105

 105

 105

 105

 103

 102

RIVER

 4,594

 9,112

RIVER
#### Frank Di Giovanna et al., Copartners under the Name of D. & D. Sales Company, Respondents, v. Hyman Garfunkel et al., Copartners under the Name of Surprise Candy Company, Appellants.

*780Hagarty, Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Lewis, JJ., concur.
Boyd, Christopher 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Cc: 

Subject: 

Kenny, 

Rogers, Bob [Bob.Rogers@shelbycountytn.gov] 

Wednesday, October 21, 2015 11:13 AM 

Kenny.Monroe@kimley-horn.com 

Gray, Carter; Boyd, Christopher; Zerwekh, Tyler; Srivastava, Pragati 

New VMT model data 

This is to follow up on a voicemaillleft just a few minutes ago. Though I have been unable to reach anyone at Region 4, 

I feel certain it would be recommended we use the newest VMT data for calculating the on-road emissions for our 

maintenance plan analysis. Please work on preparing that information for the two analysis years we don't already have 

-2012 and 2027. 

I think it is important here to give some background information on the situation. From EPA guidance on MVEBs for 

SIPs: 

40 CFR 93.122(a)(6) requires that the MOBILE inputs used in the conformity analysis be consistent with the SIP. 

SIP MVEB and regional emissions analysis methodologies should be as consistent as possible to ensure "apples 

to apples" emissions comparisons in the conformity determination. 

When we began working on the mobile source emissions estimates for the SIP, we were supplied VMT data which at 

that time was current and is, in fact, the data used in the most current, approved conformity determination. While we 

have been working on the SIP, the MPO has been moving forward on their required periodic revision of the local LRTP. 

Recently, the MPO released the draft conformity determination portion of that plan. A comparison of mobile emissions 

from our SIP analysis to those of the conformity determination showed significant differences. Conversations between 

our office and Kim ley-Horn revealed a mistake in future year VMT by vehicle type. This mistake was consistent in both 

the SIP and the conformity analysis and has been addressed in both. This did not resolve the differences. It was found 

the difference is because the modeling for the upcoming LRTP includes a new analysis of VMT by vehicle type that shows 

differences in all vehicle types, but a marked increase in HD diesel miles compared to the previous model. This new 

VMT model was only recently approved by TOOT. 

A review shows we don't expect any problems using either one as a basis, but we feel that since this new data is 

available and is being incorporated into the draft LRTP renewal, we should be using it to set the MVEB. 

Feel free to call if you have any questions or concerns. 

Bob Rogers, Manager 

Pollution Control 

Shelby County Health Department 

814 Jefferson Ave. 

Memphis TN 38105 

(901)222-9599 

1
#### Herbert Marshall TAYLOR, Plaintiff, v. Stanley C. DuROSE, Jr., the Prudential Insurance Company of America, the Capital Times Company, Defendants.

No. 67-C-68.

United States District Court E. D. Wisconsin.

Dec. 29, 1967.

Herbert Marshall Taylor, pro se.

Quarles, Herriott, Clemons, Teschner & Noelke, Milwaukee, Wis., for Prudential Ins. Co.

La Follette, Sinykin, Anderson, Davis & Abrahamson, Madison, Wis., for Capital Times.

Bronson C. La Follette, Atty. Gen., John E. Armstrong, Asst. Atty. Gen., Madison, Wis., for Stanley C. DuRose, Jr., defendant.

MYRON L. GORDON, District Judge.

ORDER

Appearing pro se, the plaintiff has filed a complaint against the three defendants alleging that they conspired to prevent him from earning his living by selling insurance. Each of the defendants has submitted an answer in which various affirmative defenses, including the lack of jurisdiction, are asserted.

On September 15, 1967, the court set up a briefing schedule requesting all the parties to submit memoranda relative to the affirmative defenses presented in the answers to the complaint.

On October 31, 1967, the court addressed a letter to the plaintiff reminding him of the briefing schedule and of his right to submit legal authority in regard to the affirmative defenses raised in the defendants’ answers.

Although there are a number of affirmative defenses offered in the answers of each defendant, the court considers that the want of federal jurisdiction is apparent on the face of the pleadings and that this flaw is dispositive of the case. The complaint contains no allegations whatsoever as to citizenship. The plaintiff would appear to be a citizen of the state of Wisconsin, as is the defendant DuRose. In addition, the Capital Times Company would appear to be a Wisconsin corporation.

There is an absence of complete diversity, and the pleadings do not show any other basis for jurisdiction as called for in rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rhodes v. Houston, D. *399C., 202 F.Supp. 624, 629, aff. 309 F.2d 959 (8 Cir. 1962).

The absence of complete diversity under the circumstances in this case requires the court to hold that it is without jurisdiction. City of Indianapolis et al. v. Chase National Bank, 314 U.S. 63, 69, 62 S.Ct. 15, 86 L.Ed. 47 (1941); Gibbons v. Dexter Horton Trust & Savings Bank, 9 Cir., 225 F. 424.

Accordingly, it is ordered that the plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed for want of jurisdiction in this court.
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 ELEV

 503.02

 502.78

 502.69

 502.50

 502.23

 502.06

 501.80

 501.51

 501.34

 501.02

 500.59

 500.17

 499.85

 499.59

 499.32

 499.07

 498.74

 498.35

 498.00

 497.65

 497.28

 496.89

 496.53

 496.18

 495.83

 495.44

 495.00

 494.51

 493.98

 493.56

 493.14

 224.6

 223.9

 223.6

 223.1

 222.3

 221.8

 221.0

 220.1

 219.6

 218.7

 217.4

 216.1

 215.2

 214.4

 213.7

 212.9

 212.0

 210.8

 209.8

 208.8

 207.7

 206.6

 205.6

 204.6

 203.6

 202.5

 201.2

 199.9

 198.4

 197.2

 196.0

STORAGE

-0.1

-0.7

-0.3

-0.6

-0.8

-0.5

-0.8

-0.9

-0.5

-1.0

-1.3

-1.2

-0.9

-0.8

-0.8

-0.7

-1.0

-1.1

-1.0

-1.0

-1.1

-1.1

-1.0

-1.0

-1.0

-1.1

-1.2

-1.4

-1.5

-1.2

-1.2

CHANGE

407

97

353

200

76

220

64

19

187

124

99

142

72

78

62

95

88

57

110

113

81

39

63

74

78

22

59

74

6

142

171

INFLOW

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

MADERA

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

SPILL

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 163

 300

 333

 102

 0

 0

 0

 121

 186

 185

 184

 183

 182

 163

 162

 161

 160

 270

 343

 340

 317

 347

FRIANT-KERN

 13

 2

 12

 10

 8

 15

 7

 7

 8

 8

 9

 5

 5

 11

 9

 13

 11

 15

 10

 11

 13

 13

 10

 9

 12

 13

 11

 19

 11

 10

 8

C.F.S.

 .13

 .02

 .12

 .10

 .08

 .16

 .07

 .07

 .08

 .08

 .09

 .05

 .05

 .12

 .10

 .14

 .12

 .16

 .11

 .12

 .14

 .14

 .11

 .10

 .13

 .14

 .12

 .21

 .12

 .11

 .09

INCHES

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .05

 .70

 .00

PRECIP

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

JANUARY 2014 MILLERTON LAKE DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: February 1, 2014

IN LAKE

EVAPORATION

INCHES

C.F.S.

COMPUTED*

1000 ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S. 

TOTALS -28.7 3,472 0 4,202 0 318 3.38 .75

ACRE-FEET -28,677 6,887 0 8,335 0 631

COMMENTS:

* COMPUTED INFLOW IS THE SUM OF CHANGE IN STORAGE, RELEASES, PUMPING AND EVAPORATION.

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

CANALS

FRIANT-KERN

MADERA

 8,335

 0 34,932

PRECIPITATION

THIS MONTH =

JULY 1, 2013 TO DATE = 2.09

 224.7

 26,597 0.75

CANALS

AT FRIANT

TOTAL RELEASES

OUTLET

 439

 458

 477

 477

 477

 462

 448

 448

 434

 433

 430

 429

 439

 451

 452

 451

 440

 427

 427

 426

 422

 409

 408

 407

 407

 406

 406

 405

 405

 404

 405

RIVER

 13,409

 26,597

RIVER
NUMBER 13-15-00322-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

JACK STORM, Appellant,

v.

RONNIE KING, Appellee.

____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3

of Nueces County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Benavides and Perkes

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, Jack Storm, appeals a final judgment rendered against him following a 

jury verdict in cause number 2012CCV-60514-3 in the County Court at Law Number

Three of Nueces County, Texas. Appellant has now filed an unopposed motion to 

dismiss this appeal on grounds that the parties have settled and compromised the dispute 
2

at issue in the underlying suit and this appeal. Appellant thus requests that we dismiss 

this appeal with all costs to be assessed to the party incurring same. 

The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellant’s motion to 

dismiss the appeal, is of the opinion that the motion should be granted. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 42.1(a). Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED. Costs will be taxed against the 

party incurring same. See id. R. 42.1(d) ("Absent agreement of the parties, the court will 

tax costs against the appellant."). Pending motions, if any, are likewise DISMISSED. 

Having dismissed the appeal at appellant’s request, no motion for rehearing will 

be entertained, and our mandate will issue forthwith. 

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the

3rd day of September, 2015.
### subpart 1—federal pell grants

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Pub. L. 105–244, title IV, §401(g)(2), Oct. 7, 1998, 112 Stat. 1652, amended subpart heading generally.