alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Colonial Dye Works, Inc., Respondent, v. John Fabio et al., Appellants.

Appeal from order entered August 2, 1947, unanimously dismissed. Orders entered on or about September 22, 1947, and October 2, 1947, respectively, unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements. No opinion. Settle orders on notice. Present — Peek, P. J., Glennon, Cohn, Van Voorhis and Snientag, *<3o.*
#### § 10.412 Will OWCP pay the costs of burial and transportation of the remains?

In a case accepted for death benefits, OWCP will pay up to $800 for funeral and burial expenses. When an employee's home is within the United States and the employee dies outside the United States, or away from home or the official duty station, an additional amount may be paid for transporting the remains to the employee's home as set forth in 5 U.S.C. 8134. An additional amount of $200 is paid to the personal representative of the decedent for reimbursement of the costs of terminating the decedent's status as an employee of the United States in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 8133.
Opinion issued November 22, 2022

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-22-00664-CV

———————————

RODD TODD, Appellant

V.

C. T. NGUYEN, Appellee

On Appeal from the 247th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 2014-27121

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant has filed an unopposed motion to dismiss this appeal because the 

parties have reached an agreement to settle the underlying dispute. No opinion has 

issued.
2

Accordingly, we grant the motion and dismiss this appeal. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 42.1(a)(1). Any other pending motions are dismissed as moot. 

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Kelly, Landau, and Farris.
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh Marilyn Kelly Stephen J. Markm an Diane M. Hathaway Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_________________________________________ Clerk February 4, 2011

0201 

# Order

February 4, 2011

140889

TIMOTHY JONES and CHRYSTAL JONES, Plaintiffs

- Appellees,

v SC: 140889 COA: 285099 Macomb CC: 2007

- 001010

- NO DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION, Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 7, 2010 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REVERSE that portion of the Court of Appeals decision reinstating one aspect of the plaintiffs’ premises liability claim and we REINSTATE the summary dispositio n ruling of the Macomb Circuit Court. The defendant premises owner did not have a duty to protect the injured plaintiff, an employee of an independent contractor hired to perform construction work on the owner’s premises, from the hazardous condition that contributed to the plaintiff’s injury, where the defendant delegated to the contractor the task of performing the construction

work. Banaszak v Northwest Airlines, Inc, 485 Mich 1034 (2010); Young v Delcor
Assoc, 477 Mich 931 (2006). Moreover, even if p remises liability had applied, the injured plaintiff could not have recovered where he was aware of the hazard, and indeed

had ordered its creation. Riddle v McLouth Steel Products Corp, 440 Mich 86 (1992). The Court of Appeals theory of liability based on the presence, location and design of the hinged metal floor hatch lacks legal and factual merit. The plaintiff, who ordered the hatch to be opened, was not injured by the presence, location and design of the hatch, but rather by falling through the hol e that was created when the hatch was opened. An owner of property cannot be held liable under premises liability law for a design of the property that permits an invitee or person in control of the property to create a hazardous condition

where none exis ted before.

M ARILYN K ELLY , J., would grant leave to appeal.

H ATHAWAY , J., would deny leave to appeal.
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 74 (Monday, April 18, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 21782]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-9481]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION


Sunshine Act; Notice of Agency Meeting

TIME AND DATE: 9 a.m., Monday, April 18, 2011.

PLACE: Board Room, 7th Floor, Room 7047, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, 
VA 22314-3428.

STATUS: Closed.

Matters To Be Considered

    1. Consideration of Supervisory Activities. Closed pursuant to 
exemptions (8), (9)(A)(ii) and 9(B).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Rupp, Secretary of the Board, 
Telephone: 703-518-6304.

Mary Rupp,
Board Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-9481 Filed 4-14-11; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE P
#### § 255.5 Recovery by cash payment.

The Board shall have the right to require that an overpayment to an individual be immediately and fully repaid in cash by that individual. However, if the Board determines that the individual is financially unable to pay the amount of the indebtedness in a lump sum, payment may be accepted in regular installments in accordance with the Federal Claims Collection Standards, found in 4 CFR chapter 2. These standards provide that whenever possible installment payments should be sufficient in amounts and frequency to liquidate the debt in not more than 3 years.
#### § 404.1519m Diagnostic tests or procedures.

We will request the results of any diagnostic tests or procedures that have been performed as part of a workup by your treating source or other medical source and will use the results to help us evaluate impairment severity or prognosis. However, we will not order diagnostic tests or procedures that involve significant risk to you, such as myelograms, arteriograms, or cardiac catheterizations for the evaluation of disability under the Social Security program. A State agency medical consultant must approve the ordering of any diagnostic test or procedure when there is a chance it may involve significant risk. The responsibility for deciding whether to perform the examination rests with the medical source designated to perform the consultative examination.

[56 FR 36957, Aug. 1, 1991, as amended at 65 FR 11876, Mar. 7, 2000; 71 FR 16444, Mar. 31, 2006; 76 FR 24806, May 3, 2011]
EXHIBIT 11
                    BellSouth Corporation
              Computation of Earnings Per Share

                 For the Three Month    For the Nine Month
                    Period Ended           Period Ended
                    September 30,         September 30,
                   1998       1997       1998        1997

Basic Earnings Per Common Share:
                                                  
Net Income      $   814    $ 1,185    $ 2,524     $ 2,532
                                                  
Weighted                                          
average shares                                    
Outstanding         983        992        988         992
                                                  
Earnings Per                                      
Common Share    $   .83    $  1.19    $  2.55     $  2.55
                                                  
                                                  EXHIBIT 11
                    BellSouth Corporation
        Computation of Earnings Per Share (continued)
                              
                 For the Three Month    For the Nine Month
                    Period Ended           Period Ended
                    September 30,         September 30,
                   1998       1997       1998        1997
Diluted Earnings Per Common Share:
                                                  
Net Income      $   814    $ 1,185    $ 2,524     $ 2,532
                                                  
Weighted                                          
average shares                                    
Outstanding         983        992        988         992
                                                  
Incremental                                       
shares from                                       
Assumed                                           
exercise of                                       
stock options                                     
and payment of                                    
performance                                       
share awards          6          3          6           2
                                                  
Total Shares        989        995        994         994
                                                  
Earnings Per                                      
Common Share    $   .82    $  1.19    $  2.54     $  2.55
EXHIBIT 99.1
 Certification of Chief Executive Officer
Pursuant to Section 111(b)(4) of the
Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008
       (a)
    
    SEO compensation plans that could lead SEOs to take
unnecessary and excessive risks that could threaten the
value of Anchor BanCorp Wisconsin Inc.;(b)
    
    Employee compensation plans that unnecessarily expose Anchor BanCorp Wisconsin Inc. to risks; and(c)
    
    Employee compensation plans that could encourage the
manipulation of reported earnings of Anchor BanCorp
Wisconsin Inc. to enhance the compensation of an
employee;




---



#####
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-20-00057-CR

Temitope A. OLAGESHIN,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019CR13033

Honorable Raymond Angelini, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Delivered and Filed: March 11, 2020

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

Appellant Temitope A. Olageshin filed a pro se notice of appeal, stating his intent to appeal 

the trial court’s December 4, 2019 order that increased the amount of his pretrial bond. We, 

however, do not have jurisdiction over this appeal.

Courts of appeal “do not have jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders unless that 

jurisdiction has been expressly granted by law.” Apolinar v. State, 820 S.W.2d 792, 794 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 1991). A trial court’s order on a motion to modify the amount or conditions of a 

pretrial bond is not authorized by statute and therefore is not appealable. See Ragston v. State, 424 
04-20-00057-CR

- 2 -

S.W.3d 49, 52 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (“There is no constitutional or statutory authority granting 

the courts of appeals jurisdiction to hear interlocutory appeals regarding excessive bail or the denial 

of bail.”); Ex parte Herrera, No. 04-18-00020-CR, 2018 WL 1733123, at *2 (Tex. App.—San 

Antonio Apr. 11, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (holding court of 

appeals lacked jurisdiction to consider issues seeking to appeal the trial court’s order increasing 

the amount of the appellant’s pretrial bond); Sanchez v. State, 340 S.W.3d 848, 852 (Tex. App.—

San Antonio 2011, no pet.) (holding court of appeals lacked jurisdiction over appeal of pretrial 

order on motion for reduction of bond).

On January 31, 2020, this court ordered appellant to show cause in writing why this appeal 

should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Appellant did not file a response showing that we 

have jurisdiction over this appeal. Therefore, this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH
### §1961. Economic assistance

The President is authorized to cooperate with and assist any nation or group of nations in the general area of the Middle East desiring such assistance in the development of economic strength dedicated to the maintenance of national independence.

(Pub. L. 85–7, §1, Mar. 9, 1957, 71 Stat. 5.)

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

#### Appropriations, Fiscal Year 1957; Restriction; Report to Congress

Pub. L. 85–7, §3, Mar. 9, 1957, 71 Stat. 5, authorized President to use, for balance of fiscal year 1957, funds not to exceed $200,000,000 for military and economic assistance for Middle East from appropriations available under Mutual Security Act of 1954, restricted availability of funds for military assistance to funds appropriated for military assistance and for economic assistance to funds appropriated for other than military assistance, and required that funds not be available until 15 days after reports on proposed use of funds be supplied to appropriate Congressional committees.
### §970. Criminal forfeitures

Section 853 of this title, relating to criminal forfeitures, shall apply in every respect to a violation of this subchapter punishable by imprisonment for more than one year.

(Pub. L. 91–513, title III, §1017, as added Pub. L. 98–473, title II, §307, Oct. 12, 1984, 98 Stat. 2051.)
Exhibit 32.1

Certification Required by 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 (as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

I, John C. Textor, as Chief Executive Officer of BabyUniverse, Inc. (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 to my knowledge:

|1. | the accompanying Annual   Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the annual period ended December 31,   2005 (the Report), filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission,   fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the   Securities and 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.                                                                                                                                                            

|Date: March 30, 2006 | /s/    JOHN   C. TEXTOR  
|-------------------- | -------------------------
|                     |                          
|                     | John C.   Textor         
|                     | Chief   Executive Officer

---
§ 7.232 Definitions. As used in this subpart, the term “advertisement” or “advertising” includes any written or verbal statement, illustration, or depiction which is in, or calculated to induce sales in, interstate or foreign commerce, or is disseminated by mail, whether it appears in a newspaper, magazine, trade booklet, menu, wine card, leaflet, circular, mailer, book insert, catalog, promotional material, sales pamphlet, internet or other electronic site or social network, or in any written, printed, graphic, or other matter (such as hang tags) accompanying, but not firmly affixed to, the container, representations made on shipping cases, or in any billboard, sign, or other outdoor display, public transit card, other periodical literature, publication, or in a radio or television broadcast, or in any other media; except that such term shall not include: ( a ) Any label affixed to any container of malt beverages; or any coverings, cartons, or cases of containers of malt beverages used for sale at retail which constitute a part of the labeling under this part.
( b ) Any editorial or other reading material (such as a news release) in any periodical or publication or newspaper, for the publication of which no money or valuable consideration or thing of value is paid or promised, directly or indirectly, by any permittee or brewer, and which is not written by or at the direction of the permittee or brewer.
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

 322

 282

 248

 244

 235

 252

 260

 235

 223

 225

 205

 208

 210

 194

 206

 198

 194

 195

 187

 181

 197

 211

 217

 219

 211

 216

 204

 208

 196

 196

 161

 164

 162

 169

 146

 147

 154

 138

 136

 133

 131

 133

 133

 132

 132

 136

 135

 140

 143

 138

 142

 139

 138

 139

 139

 135

 135

 137

 139

 124

 252

 234

 221

 213

 204

 211

 215

 205

 194

 192

 179

 176

 173

 170

 171

 176

 174

 174

 169

 163

 170

 173

 175

 178

 175

 174

 170

 169

 166

 158

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

APRIL 2019 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: May 6, 2019

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

RIO VISTA ON THE SACRAMENTO RIVER
<PAGE>
                                                                EXHIBIT 10.15

                            PROMISSORY NOTE (#7)


$20,000.00                                                    August 30, 1995


     FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned promises to pay to Painter Group
Corporation "PGC", at San Diego, California, or such other place as the holder
of this Note may from time to time in writing direct, the principal sum of
Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000.00) with interest from the above date at the
rate of ten percent (10%) per annum.  Interest shall be calculated on the
basis of a three hundred sixty (360) day year and, if the principal sum is
paid earlier than the date due, on the actual number of
days that such principal was outstanding. Principal and interest will be
payable in six months.

     Principal and interest shall be payable in lawful money of the United
States of America and all or any part of the unpaid balance of principal may
be repaid at any time, without premium or penalty.

     The undersigned hereby waives presentment, protest, notice of protest,
demand for payment, notice of dishonor and any and all other notices and
demands in connection with the delivery, acceptance, performance, default or
enforcement of this Note.  No delay by the holder in exercising any power or
right hereunder shall operate as a waiver of any power or right.

     The entire sum shall become immediately due and payable without further
notice, demand or presentment, at the option of the holder of this Note, upon
the occurrence at any time of any one or more of the following events
("events of default"): (a) an assignment by the undersigned for the benefit
of its creditors; (b) the initiation of involuntary bankruptcy proceedings
against the undersigned, which proceedings are not dismissed within 60 days
thereafter of (c) the filing by the undersigned of a petition under the
Federal Bankruptcy Code or comparable state laws for the reorganization,
arrangement or other judicial protection upon insolvency.

     The foregoing option to accelerate the indebtedness evidenced by this
Note may be exercised by PGC at any time after the occurrence of any of
the events of default.  The failure to exercise the foregoing option on the
occurrence of one or more of such events of default shall not prevent the
exercise upon the reoccurrence of such events of default or upon the
occurrence of any other event of default.

     The undersigned agrees to pay all out-of-pocket expenses (including
reasonable attorneys' fees and legal expenses) incurred by PGC hereunder
in connection with enforcing the obligations of the undersigned hereunder.

     This Note shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws
of the State of California.

                                                 TCS ENTERPRISES, INC.



8-30-95                                          /s/ James B. Kylstad
--------------------                             --------------------------
Date                                             James B. Kylstad
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

JORGE DE LA VEGA,

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

 § 

No. 08-09-00308-CR

Appeal from the

County Criminal Court at Law No. 1

of El Paso County, Texas 

(TC# 20080C010228) 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Jorge De La Vega has filed a notice of appeal from an order denying his

motion to suppress evidence and his motion to establish probable cause for arrest. The record

currently on file in this Court does not indicate that the trial court has entered a final order of

conviction in the underlying case. By letter dated January 13, 2010, the clerk of this Court

notified Appellant’s appointed counsel of our intent to dismiss the appeal for want of

jurisdiction, and invited Appellant to file a response within ten days to demonstrate ground for

continuing the appeal. See TEX.R.APP.P. 42.4. Appellant has not responded to the Court’s

notice.

In order to perfect an appeal in a criminal case, a defendant must file a notice of appeal

“within 30 days after the day sentence is imposed or suspended in open court, or after the day the

trial court enters an appealable order . . . .” See TEX.R.APP.P. 26.2(a)(1). An appellate court

does not have jurisdiction to consider interlocutory orders, such as an order denying a motion to
suppress, unless that jurisdiction has been expressly granted by law. See TEX.CODE

CRIM.PROC.ANN. art. 44.02 (Vernon 2008); Bridle v. State, 16 S.W.3d 906, 907 (Tex.App.--Fort

Worth 2000, no pet.). As this appeal was not taken from a final appealable order, and the record

does not contain such, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

February 10, 2010

DAVID WELLINGTON CHEW, Chief Justice

Before Chew, C.J., McClure, and Rivera, JJ.

(Do Not Publish)

-2-