alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 99.3 - Annual Statement of Compliance for the year
	       ended December 31, 2005

a)

                           [OCWEN Letterhead]

			Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC
			   successor in interest to
			Ocwen Federal Bank FSB
	Compliance Certification Year Ended December 31, 2005
			    MASTR 2005-WMC1


The undersigned Officer of Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC as successor
in interest to Ocwen Federal Bank FSB (the "Servicer") confirms
that a review of the activities of the Servicer during the calendar
year ending on December 31, 2005 and of the performance of the Servicer
under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement for MASTR Asset Backed
Securities Trust 2005-WMC1 Mortgage Pass Through Certificates Series
2005-WMC1 dated and effective as of April 1, 2005 (the "Servicing
Agreement") has been made under his supervision.  Except as noted on
the Management Assertion on Compliance with USAP, to the best of the
undersigned Officer's knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has
fulfilled all of its obligations as set forth in the Servicing Agreement.


By:	/s/ Scott W. Anderson             Dated: March 15, 2006
	Scott W. Anderson, Senior Vice President
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Johnny Lee ANDERSON, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-3043.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Aug. 4, 2006.

James A. Brown, Asst. U.S. Attorney, Office of U.S. Attorney, Topeka, KS, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Marilyn M. Trubey, Office of the Federal Public Defender for the District of Kansas, Topeka, KS, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before KELLY, McKAY, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

MONROE G. McKAY, Circuit Judge.

After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the resolution of this appeal. *See*Fed. RApp. P. 34(a)(2). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Appellant pleaded guilty to one count of distributing cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), on February 9, 2005. He was sentenced on January 24, 2006, to 113 months’ imprisonment. Appellant filed a timely appeal contesting the district court’s sentencing him as a career offender. Specifically, Appellant argues that the Sixth Amendment requires that prior convictions be proven beyond a reasonable doubt before they can trigger the career offender provision and enhance the length of sentence.

We review sentences imposed after *United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), for reasonableness. We have held that prior convictions need not be charged in an indictment and proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, nor admitted by an accused, to be used to enhance a statutory sentence. *United States v. Moore,*401 F.3d 1220, 1224 (10th Cir.2005). In addi*701tion, we have held that a district court’s career offender findings do not implicate the Sixth Amendment. *United States v. Small,*423 F.3d 1164,1188 (10th Cir.2005). We therefore find no support for Appellant’s arguments.

We have carefully reviewed the briefs of Appellant and Appellee, the district court’s findings, and the record on appeal, and for substantially similar reasons to those laid out by the district court in its May 11, 2005, and January 18, 2006, Sentencing Findings, we AFFIRM the district court’s sentence.

*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
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

 950.85

 950.93

 951.10

 951.03

 951.23

 951.65

 951.83

 952.02

 952.14

 952.18

 951.98

 951.93

 951.85

 951.84

 951.76

 951.81

 951.69

 951.58

 951.11

 950.81

 950.51

 950.14

 949.81

 949.44

 949.02

 948.62

 948.31

 947.99

 947.83

 947.67

 947.45

 1,061.9

 1,062.5

 1,063.8

 1,063.2

 1,064.7

 1,067.9

 1,069.2

 1,070.7

 1,071.6

 1,071.9

 1,070.4

 1,070.0

 1,069.4

 1,069.3

 1,068.7

 1,069.1

 1,068.2

 1,067.4

 1,063.8

 1,061.6

 1,059.3

 1,056.6

 1,054.1

 1,051.4

 1,048.2

 1,045.3

 1,043.0

 1,040.6

 1,039.4

 1,038.3

 1,036.6

STORAGE

+1.9

+0.6

+1.3

-0.5

+1.5

+3.2

+1.4

+1.4

+0.9

+0.3

-1.5

-0.4

-0.6

-0.1

-0.6

+0.4

-0.9

-0.8

-3.5

-2.2

-2.2

-2.8

-2.5

-2.8

-3.1

-3.0

-2.3

-2.4

-1.2

-1.2

-1.6

CHANGE

1,056

573

681

671

778

1,691

1,094

773

512

701

354

396

365

576

380

277

248

226

451

416

446

401

425

421

570

617

640

376

682

481

620

INFLOW

 102

 253

 32

 929

 14

 69

 381

 26

 24

 522

 1,090

 559

 638

 539

 639

 47

 380

 10

 2,044

 1,517

 1,492

 1,744

 1,618

 1,756

 2,087

 2,085

 1,786

 1,552

 1,251

 1,057

 1,395

POWER

 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

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 276

 581

 140

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

OUTLET

 12

 19

 7

 7

 7

 32

 32

 27

 32

 27

 24

 27

 29

 75

 44

 41

 46

 51

 46

 31

 85

 51

 48

 53

 58

 26

 12

 19

 26

 19

 43

C.F.S.

 .05

 .08

 .03

 .03

 .03

 .13

 .13

 .11

 .13

 .11

 .10

 .11

 .12

 .31

 .18

 .17

 .19

 .21

 .19

 .13

 .35

 .21

 .20

 .22

 .24

 .11

 .05

 .08

 .11

 .08

 .18

INCHES

 1.01

 .01

 .02

 .53

 .00

 1.00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .04

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .22

 .70

 .00

 .00

 .97

 .07

PRECIP

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

MARCH 2014 NEW MELONES LAKE DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: April 25, 2014

IN LAKE

EVAPORATION

INCHES

C.F.S.

COMPUTED*

1000 ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S.

TOTALS -23.3 17,898 27,638 0 997 1,056 4.37 4.57

ACRE-FEET -23,300 35,501 54,820 0 1,978 2,095

COMMENTS:

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

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

POWER 54,820

SPILL 0

OUTLET

TOTAL

 1,978

 56,798

PRECIPITATION

THIS MONTH =

TO DATE =

 4.57

JULY 1, 2013 13.97

 1,060.0

Table 13
EXHIBIT 32.1

Certification by the Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, I, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer of Genzyme Corporation (the "Company"), hereby certify that the Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended September 30, 2006 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

|/s/HENRI A. TERMEERHenri A. Termeer Chief Executive
Officer |  | 
|----------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|November 3, 2006                                            |  | 

---



QuickLinks
EXHIBIT 32.2

              CERTIFICATES OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
         SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2003 (18 U.S.C. 1350)


     Solely for the  purposes  of  complying  with 18 U.S.C.  ss.  1350,  I, the
undersigned  Chief Financial  Officer of Century Pacific  Financial  Corporation
(the "Company"),  hereby certify, based on my knowledge,  that the Annual Report
on Form  10-KSB  of the  Company  for the year  ended  September  30,  2004 (the
"Report"):

     1.   Fully  complies  with  the   requirements  of  Section  13(a)  of  the
          Securities Exchange Act of 1934: and

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


/s/ David Hadley
--------------------------------
David Hadley
January 10, 2005
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

MATTHEW HICKEN, § 

 § No. 498, 2017 

 Petitioner Below, § 

Appellant, § Court Below—Superior Court 

 § of the State of Delaware 

 v. § 

 § C.A. No. N17M-05-331 

DELAWARE DEPARTMENT OF § 

CORRECTIONS, § 

 § 

Respondent Below, § 

Appellee. § 

Submitted: February 14, 2018 

Decided: February 15, 2018 

 ORDER 

This 15th day of February 2018, it appears to the Court that the Clerk issued a 

notice to show cause directing the appellant to show cause why the above-captioned 

appeal should not be dismissed for the appellant’s failure to file a motion to proceed 

in forma pauperis or to pay the filing fee associated with the appeal. The appellant 

has not responded to the notice to show cause within the required ten-day period. 

Accordingly, dismissal of the appeal is deemed to be unopposed. 

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rules 3(b)(2) 

and 29(b), that the appeal is DISMISSED. 

 BY THE COURT: 

 /s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. 

 Justice
### SUBCHAPTER III—SANCTIONS WITH RESPECT TO IRAN'S REVOLUTIONARY GUARD CORPS
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 76 (Wednesday, April 20, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 22078]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-9480]



[[Page 22078]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Rural Business-Cooperative Service


Maximum Loan Amount Available for B&I Guaranteed Loans in Fiscal 
Year 2011

AGENCY: Rural Business-Cooperative Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: 7 CFR 4279.119(a)(1) allows the Rural Development 
Administrator, at the Administrator's discretion, to grant an exception 
to the $10 million limit for Business and Industry (B&I) guaranteed 
loans of $25 million or less under certain circumstances. Due to the 
limited program funds that will be available for Fiscal Year 2011 for 
the B&I Guaranteed Loan Program, the Administrator has decided not to 
grant exceptions to the $10 million limit during FY 2011 in an effort 
to make guaranteed loan funds go farther and to provide financing 
assistance to as many projects as possible. Limiting guaranteed loans 
to $10 million or less will allow the Agency to guarantee more loans 
and target smaller loans/projects impacting more small businesses and 
will assist the Agency to conserve scarce funding dollars at a time 
when there is unprecedented interest in the program. Any applications 
or pre-applications that have been received as of the date of 
publication of this notice will be given full consideration.

DATES: Effective Date: April 20, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brenda Griffin, e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c0a2b2a5aea4a1eea7b2a9a6a6a9ae80b7a4a3eeb5b3a4a1eea7afb6"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a2c0d0c7ccc6c38cc5d0cbc4c4cbcce2d5c6c18cd7d1c6c38cc5cdd4">[email protected]</span></a>, Rural Development, Business Programs, 
Business and Industry Division, STOP 3224, 1400 Independence Avenue, 
SW., Washington, DC 20250-3224, telephone (202) 720-6802.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This action has been reviewed and determined 
not to be a rule or regulation as defined in Executive Order 12866 as 
amended by Executive Order 13258.

    Dated: March 28, 2011.
Judith A. Canales,
Administrator, Rural Business-Cooperative Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-9480 Filed 4-19-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-XY-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
### subpart a—state requirements
Electrical Conductivity, UMHOS

Day High Low Mean

1 200 142 157

2 176 139 149

3 167 137 145

4 335 140 166

5 253 137 162

6 205 136 159

7 204 134 158

8 188 137 156

9 196 140 158

10 165 140 152

11 171 140 150

12 166 139 152

13 165 138 147

14 190 140 157

15 723 140 200

16 202 140 156

17 393 136 172

18 337 134 163

19 186 130 152

20 168 124 142

21 152 121 136

22 145 120 132

23 139 120 130

24 133 114 125

25 130 113 121

26 124 111 116

27 126 108 114

28 641 105 143

29 1,225 106 234

30 436 107 147

31 249 106 125

COMMENT(S):

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

Historical Archive and Report Database

Port Chicago Top In Suisun Bay 

Period: May 2023 Run Date: 6/12/2023
(No. 6575

#### Winnebago County Mental Health Clinic,Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Department of Mental Health, Respondent.

*Opinion filed August 17, 1972.*

*50Winnebago County Mental Health Clinic, Claimant, pro se.

William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.

Perlin, C.J.
#### § 10.432 How can an individual present evidence to OWCP in response to a preliminary notice of an overpayment?

The individual may present this evidence to OWCP in writing or at a pre-recoupment hearing. The evidence must be presented or the hearing requested within 30 days of the date of the written notice of overpayment. Failure to request the hearing within this 30-day time period shall constitute a waiver of that right.
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

 27,385

 26,961

 26,487

 26,057

 25,652

 25,203

 24,823

 24,387

 23,952

 23,557

 23,221

 22,910

 22,574

 22,206

 21,834

 21,438

 21,045

 20,665

 20,289

 19,916

 19,591

 19,249

 18,869

 18,517

 18,158

 17,804

 17,448

 17,089

 16,752

 16,419

 16,073

 33,243

 32,901

 32,564

 32,224

 31,885

 31,520

 31,274

 30,915

 30,528

 30,161

 29,830

 29,556

 29,283

 28,921

 28,565

 28,207

 27,853

 27,487

 27,123

 26,769

 26,475

 26,133

 25,783

 25,416

 25,046

 24,681

 24,323

 23,935

 23,574

 23,211

 22,827

STORAGE - A.F. 

 60,628

 59,862

 59,051

 58,281

 57,537

 56,723

 56,097

 55,302

 54,480

 53,718

 53,051

 52,466

 51,857

 51,127

 50,399

 49,645

 48,898

 48,152

 47,412

 46,685

 46,066

 45,382

 44,652

 43,933

 43,204

 42,485

 41,771

 41,024

 40,326

 39,630

 38,900

723

848

771

790

772

752

1,197

942

1,314

1,365

1,522

1,523

1,967

1,343

1,074

975

1,057

968

1,049

897

1,353

1,128

887

822

893

804

925

949

1,021

1,000

883

324

462

362

402

397

342

881

541

900

981

1,186

1,228

1,660

975

707

595

680

592

676

530

1,041

783

519

460

525

442

565

575

669

649

515

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

DECEMBER 2009 FULL NATURAL FLOW AT NEW MELONES DAM RUN DATE: 01/01/2010

TOTALS -22,520 21,164

* October 1, 41,979

 51.0

 51.9

 52.6

 53.4

 54.2

 54.9

 56.6

 57.7

 59.5

 61.4

 63.8

 66.2

 69.5

 71.4

 72.8

 74.0

 75.4

 76.5

 77.9

 78.9

 81.0

 82.5

 83.6

 84.5

 85.5

 86.4

 87.5

 88.7

 90.0

 91.3

 92.3

DONNELLS

RES

BEARDSLEY

RES

2009 TO DATE

NEW

MELONES

INFLOW

C.F.S

NATURAL

RIVER

C.F.S

ACCUM *

FULL

NATURAL

1000 A.F.

RESERVOIR

TOTAL

-792

-766

-811

-770

-744

-814

-626

-795

-822

-762

-667

-585

-609

-730

-728

-754

-747

-746

-740

-727

-619

-684

-730

-719

-729

-719

-714

-747

-698

-696

-730

CHANGE

A.F. C.F.S.

-399

-386

-409

-388

-375

-410

-316

-401

-414

-384

-336

-295

-307

-368

-367

-380

-377

-376

-373

-367

-312

-345

-368

-362

-368

-362

-360

-377

-352

-351

-368
480 P.2d 690

#### In the Matter of the ESTATE of William Thomas KOGLIN, Deceased. Anthony F. AVALLONE, Claimant-Appellant, v. Edith C. KOGLIN, Executrix-Appellee.

No. 9125.

Supreme Court of New Mexico.

Feb. 1, 1971.

Anthony F. Avallone, pro se.

Frazier, Cusack & Schnedar, Roswell, for executrix-appellee.

OPINION

TACKETT, Justice. ■

This is an appeal from an order of the District Court of Chaves County, New Mexico, which dismissed an appeal from the Probate Court of that county.

The facts are that Edith C. Koglin was appointed executrix under the will of William Thomas Koglin on January 8, =1968. The first publication of such appointment was on January 11, 1968. A claim against Koglin’s estate was filed by Avallone on June 10, 1968, but notice of hearing on the claim was not given within six months, as required by § 31-8-3, N.M.S.A (1953 Comp.). The probate judge denied the claim. Avallone gave notice of appeal to the district court on January 14; 1970:

 By his order of June 15, 1970, Judge Reese held that there was no notice of hearing on the claim within six months from the date of the first publication, and further held that the court did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal, as it was brought more than twelve months after the date of the first publication of notice of appointment of the executrix. The district court did not err in dismissing the appeal, as § 16-4-18, N.M.S.A. (1953 Cómp.), allows ninety days to appeal a decision of the probate court. Levers v. Houston, 49 N.M. 169, 159 P.2d 761 (1945).

This court considered the very same issue as is now before us in the case of In re Estate of Welch, 80 N.M. 448, 457 P.2d 380 (1969), wherein we held:

> “There are two mandatory steps claimant must take if he would have his claim allowed: (a) Filing a claim; and (b) notice of hearing thereon. We have held that both of these requirements must be met; otherwise, the claim is barred. * * **”*

Avallone complied with requirement (a), supra, but failed in requirement (b), supra.

The judgment is affirmed.

It is so ordered.

COMPTON, C. J., and McMANUS, J., concur.
The Honorable Lawrence L. Piersol, United States District

1

Judge for the District of South Dakota.

___________

No. 95-2680

___________

Cecil Johnson, Jr., *

 *

Appellant, *

 * Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

 * District of South Dakota.

Joe Class, Warden, * [UNPUBLISHED]

 *

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: February 6, 1996

 Filed: March 12, 1996

___________

Before McMILLIAN, WOLLMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

South Dakota inmate Cecil Johnson, Jr., appeals from the final order

entered in the district court dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition

1

without prejudice. On appeal, Johnson, through counsel, argues the

district court erred in determining that he was not denied effective

assistance of counsel at a state court hearing revoking his probation.

After carefully reviewing the record, we conclude that Johnson's section

2254 petition was properly dismissed.

We deny Johnson's pro se motion. See United States v. Blum, 65 F.3d

1436, 1443 n.2 (8th Cir. 1995) (general policy is to refuse
-2-

pro se filings when party is represented by counsel), cert. denied, 1995

WL 761577 (U.S. Jan. 22, 1996) (No. 95-7152).

The judgment is affirmed.

A true copy.

Attest:

 CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
<PAGE>

                                                                 Exhibit 21.1


                          SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                        JURISDICTION OF
NAME                                                                     INCORPORATION    PERCENT OWNED
---------------------------------------------------------------------   ---------------   -------------
<S>                                                                     <C>               <C>
Merrill/New York Company.............................................      Minnesota           100%
Merrill/Magnus Publishing Corporation................................      Minnesota           100%
Merrill Corporation, Canada .........................................      Ontario             100%
Merrill/May, Inc.....................................................      Minnesota           100%
Merrill International Inc............................................      Minnesota           100%
Merrill Real Estate Company..........................................      Minnesota           100%
FMC Resource Management Corporation..................................      Washington          100%
Merrill/Superstar Computing Company..................................      Minnesota           100%
</TABLE>
§ 30.905 How may an impairment evaluation be obtained? ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, OWCP may request that an employee undergo an evaluation of his or her permanent impairment that specifies the percentage points that are the result of the employee's covered illness or illnesses. To be of any probative value, such evaluation must be performed by a physician who meets the criteria OWCP has identified for physicians performing impairment evaluations for the pertinent covered illness or illnesses in accordance with the AMA's *Guides.*
( b ) In lieu of submitting an evaluation requested by OWCP under paragraph (a) of this section, an employee may obtain an impairment evaluation at his own initiative and submit it to OWCP for consideration. Such an evaluation will be deemed to have sufficient probative value to be considered in the adjudication of impairment benefits by OWCP only if: ( 1 ) The evaluation was performed by a physician who meets the criteria identified by OWCP for the covered illness or illnesses in question;
( 2 ) The evaluation was performed no more than one year before the date that it was received by OWCP; and
( 3 ) The evaluation conforms to all applicable requirements set out in this part.
### SUBCHAPTER I—DEMOCRATIC, ECONOMIC, AND DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE FOR PAKISTAN
### §379c. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, act June 25, 1938, ch. 675, §711, as added Nov. 28, 1990, Pub. L. 101–635, title II, §201, 104 Stat. 4584, which related to recovery and retention of fees for freedom of information requests, was renumbered section 731 of act June 25, 1938, by Pub. L. 102–571, title I, §106(6), Oct. 29, 1992, 106 Stat. 4499, and transferred to section 379f of this title.
### NUMBER 13 - 15 - 00406 - CV 

## COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

JOHN HUBBARD, A ppellant ,
v. CUE FINANCIAL GROUP, INC., AND FOOTHILL SECURITIES, INCORPORATED, A ppellees

.

On a ppeal from the 105 th District Court of Nueces County, Texas.



## MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Rodriguez, Garza , and Longoria Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam Appellant perfected an appeal from a judgment entered by the 105th District Court of Nueces County, Texas, in cause number 2011

- DCV

- 5694

- D . This cause is presently before the Court on an agreed motion to dismiss appeal as to Cue Financial Group, Inc.
and Foothill Securities, Incorporated. 1

1 This cause was severed from appellate cause number 13

- 15

- 000 13 8

- CV.2

John Hubbard and appellees Cue Financial Group, Inc. (“Cue”), and Foothill Securities, Incorporated (“Foothill”), have filed an agreed motion to dismiss the portion of the appeal pertaining to Cue and Foothill pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure
42.1. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 42.1. According to the agreed motion, Hubbard, Cue, and Foothill have settled all matters in controversy between them and have entered into a settlement agreement. Pursuant to the settlement , appellant has agreed to dismiss his appeal against Cue and Foothill with prejudice, with all fees and costs taxed against the party incurring same. The agreed motion to dismiss is not opposed by the other parties to this appeal. The Court, having cons idered the documents on file and the agreed motion to dismiss, is of the opinion that the motion should be granted. See id. 42.1(a). The agreed motion to dismiss Hubbard’s appeal as to Cue and Foothill is GRANTED and the appeal is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDIC E

. Pursuant to the agreement of the parties, costs will be taxed against the party incurring same. See id. R. 42.1(d). Having dismissed the appeal at parties’ request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained, and our mandate will issue forthwith.

PER CURIAM
D elivered and filed the 1 7 th day of September, 2017

.
### Part 2—Employees