alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
4100

4100

4100

4100

4100

4100

4150

4100

4150

4100

4100

4150

4100

4100

4100

9

9

9

9

9

C O U N T Y R D -A 0 0 3

C O U N T Y R D -A 0 0 3

9

9

9

9

9

C O U N T Y R D -A 0 0 3

C O U N T Y R D -A 0 0 3

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

ESTADOS UNIDOS MEXICANOS

Noria

Herrington's

Lower Ranch

Lanark La Union

Potrillo Noria Strauss

Kilbourne

Hole

3

35

30"

000m

31°

25

35

000 FEET

47'

280

52'

17

21

45' 23

3

35

35

15

480

35

3

3

50'

50'

24

52'

47' 3

35

3

26

45'

29

20

28 3

50'

30

30

000

30"

16

27

3

3518

17

35

47'

30"

27

30"

106°

35

24

FEET

22

35

26 30"

35

23

31°

35

32

21

19

000m

35

450

50'

25 26

52'

106°

1

31°

31

18

28

52'

35

20

35

FEET

3

16

3 E 3

N

3

45'

25

000m

3

19

35

31°

N

310

3

30"

34

27

32

106° 1

35

35

3

47'

45'

000m

25

3

30"

35

35

35

35

31

35

23

35

30" 3

26

35

000 FEET 3 29

E 3

24

27

106° 3 33

000

22

15

35

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

NEW MEXICO

ADJOINING 7.5' QUADRANGLES

QUADRANGLE LOCATION

NORIA, NM-CHH

2010

Interstate Route State Route

ROAD CLASSIFICATION

Interstate Route US Route State Route

Ramp 4WD

US Route Local Road

NORIA QUADRANGLE

NEW MEXICO-CHIHUAHUA

7.5-MINUTE SERIES

Zone 13R

North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83)

World Geodetic System of 1984 (WGS84). Projection and

1 000-meter grid: Universal Transverse Mercator,

Produced by the United States Geological Survey

10 000-foot ticks: New Mexico Coordinate System of 1983

(central zone)

Imagery................................NAIP, January 2005 - July 2009

Roads..............................................©2006-2010 Tele Atlas

Names...............................................................GNIS, 2008

Hydrography.................National Hydrography Dataset, 2005

Contours............................National Elevation Dataset, 2001

1000 500 0 METERS 1000 2000

1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000

FEET

This map was produced to conform with version 0.5.10 of the

draft USGS Standards for 7.5-Minute Quadrangle Maps.

A metadata file associated with this product is draft version 0.5.11

SCALE 1:24 000

1 0.5 0 1

MILES

MN

1 0.5 0 KILOMETERS 1 2

GN

UTM GRID AND 2010 MAGNETIC NORTH DECLINATION AT CENTER OF SHEET

0° 57 ́

17 MILS

9° 5 ́

162 MILS

U.S. National Grid

100,000-m Square ID

Grid Zone Designation

13R

CR

CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 FEET

NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988
NO. 07-06-0172-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL A

SEPTEMBER 8, 2006

______________________________

IN THE INTEREST OF K.C.B., A CHILD

_________________________________

FROM THE 100TH DISTRICT COURT OF COLLINGSWORTH COUNTY;

NO. 6951; HONORABLE PHIL VANDERPOOL, JUDGE

_______________________________

Before REAVIS and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

By order dated March 31, 2006, the trial court terminated the parental rights of

appellant Angela Melton. Pursuant to section 201.015 of the Texas Family Code (Vernon

2002), on April 3, 2006, Melton filed a notice of appeal to the referring court requesting de

novo review. The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services responded with a

motion to strike the notice of appeal for de novo review. A hearing was set on the matter.

Meanwhile, Melton filed a notice of appeal with the trial court clerk expressing an intent to
2

appeal the termination order to this Court. Following the hearing, on June 19, 2006, the

trial court granted Melton’s notice of appeal for de novo review to the referring court. 

Pending before this Court is Melton’s motion to dismiss the appeal filed here as

premature. She asserts there is no final judgment from which to appeal. See generally,

Key Western Life Ins. Co. v. State Bd. of Ins., 163 Tex. 11, 350 S.W.2d 839, 846 (1961)

(holding that de novo review is not an appeal, but an independent action). See also Lamar

County Appraisal Dist. v. Campbell Soup Co., 93 S.W.3d 642, 645 (Tex.App.–Texarkana

2002, no pet.) (noting that trial de novo is a new trial on the entire case and cures all

procedural defects in the proceedings below). 

We agree with Melton that there is no final judgment and grant the motion to dismiss

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

be entertained and our mandate will issue forthwith.

Don H. Reavis

 Justice
#### § 585.616 [Reserved]
<PAGE>   1
                                                                  EXHIBIT 10.10



                    FIRST AMENDMENT TO AMENDED AND EXTENDED
                              EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

This Amendment amends that certain Amended and Extended Employment Agreement
(the "Agreement") dated as of June 25, 1996 effective as of March 1, 1996,
between InterVoice, Inc., a Texas corporation with its principal executive
offices at 17811 Waterview Parkway, Dallas, Texas 75252 (the "Company"), and
Michael W. Barker (the "Employee").

1.       The first four lines of the definition for "Applicable EPS Bonus
         Percentage" are amended in their entirety to read as follows:

                 "Applicable EPS Bonus Percentage" means, with respect to the
                 applicable fiscal year, the percentage set forth in the
                 right-hand column below as determined with reference to the
                 increase or decrease in the Company's earnings per share
                 between such fiscal year and the greater of $1.05 or the
                 earnings per share for the immediately preceding fiscal year:

2.       The first four lines of the definition for "Applicable Revenue Bonus
         Percentage" are amended in their entirety to read as follows:

                 "Applicable Revenue Bonus Percentage" means, with respect to
                 the applicable fiscal year, the percentage set forth in the
                 right-hand column below as determined with reference to the
                 increase or decrease in the Company's total revenues between
                 such fiscal year and the greater of $97,103,054 or the total
                 revenues for the immediately preceding fiscal year:

The Agreement, as amended hereby, is hereby ratified, confirmed and approved.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment as of June 25,
1996, effective for all purposes as of March 1, 1996.

                                        InterVoice, Inc.


                                        By: /s/ DANIEL D. HAMMOND
                                            -----------------------------------
                                        Name:  Daniel D. Hammond
                                               --------------------------------
                                        Title:  Chairman of the Board &
                                                -------------------------------
                                                   Chief Executive Officer


                                        /s/ MICHAEL W. BARKER
                                        ---------------------------------------
                                        Michael W. Barker
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 9541 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 9541

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
     To amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency 
    Assistance Act to authorize Federal agencies to provide certain 
essential assistance for hazard mitigation for electric utilities, and 
                          for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Promoting Opportunities to Widen 
Electrical Resilience Act of 2024'' or the ``POWER Act of 2024''.

SEC. 2. ESSENTIAL ASSISTANCE.

    (a) Section 403 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 
Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5170b) is amended by adding at the 
end the following:
    ``(e) Electric Utilities.--
            ``(1) Hazard mitigation activities.--An electric utility 
        may carry out cost-effective hazard mitigation activities 
        jointly or otherwise in combination with activities for the 
        restoration of power carried out with assistance provided under 
        this section.
            ``(2) Eligibility for additional assistance.-- In any case 
        in which an electric utility facility receives assistance under 
        this section for the emergency restoration of power, the 
        receipt of such assistance shall not render such facility 
        ineligible for any hazard mitigation assistance under section 
        406 for which such facility is otherwise eligible.''.
    (b) Applicability.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall only 
apply to amounts appropriated on or after the date of enactment of this 
Act.

            Passed the House of Representatives December 9, 2024.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
118th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 9541

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

     To amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency 
    Assistance Act to authorize Federal agencies to provide certain 
essential assistance for hazard mitigation for electric utilities, and 
                          for other purposes.
```
### [§5319. Repealed. Pub. L. 114–94, div. A, title III, §3030(c), Dec. 4, 2015, 129 Stat. 1497]

Section, Pub. L. 103–272, §1(d), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 818; Pub. L. 105–178, title III, §3019, June 9, 1998, 112 Stat. 362; Pub. L. 109–59, title III, §3002(b)(4), Aug. 10, 2005, 119 Stat. 1545; Pub. L. 110–244, title II, §201(h), June 6, 2008, 122 Stat. 1610; Pub. L. 112–141, div. B, §20030(c), July 6, 2012, 126 Stat. 730, made certain bicycle facilities eligible for assistance under sections 5307, 5309, and 5311 of this title.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective Oct. 1, 2015, see section 1003 of Pub. L. 114–94, set out as an Effective Date of 2015 Amendment note under section 5313 of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees.
PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS

 

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Two Commerce Square, Suite 1700

2001 Market Street

Philadelphia PA 19103-7042

Telephone (267) 330 3000

Facsimile (267) 330 3300

Report of Independent Accountants

To the Shareholders and Trustees of

The Berwyn Funds

In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements of The Berwyn Funds (the "Funds") for the period ended December 31, 2002 we considered their internal control, including control activities for safeguarding securities, in order to determine our auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinions on the financial statements and to comply with the requirements of Form N-SAR, not to provide assurance oil internal control.

The management of the Funds is responsible for establishing and maintaining internal control.  In fulfilling this responsibility, estimates and judgments by management are required to assess the expected benefits and related costs of controls. Generally, controls that are relevant to an audit pertain to the entity's objective of preparing financial statements for external purposes that are fairly presented in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. Those controls include the safeguarding of assets against unauthorized acquisition, use or disposition.

Because of inherent limitations in internal control, errors or fraud may occur and not be detected.  Also, projection of any evaluation of internal control to future periods is subject to the risk that controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions or that the effectiveness of their design and operation may deteriorate.

Our consideration of internal control would not necessarily disclose all matters in internal control that might be material weaknesses under standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. A material weakness is a condition in which the design or operation of one or more of the internal control components does not reduce to a relatively low level the risk that misstatements caused by error or fraud in amounts that would be material in relation to the financial statements being audited may occur and not be detected within a timely period by employees in the normal course of performing their assigned functions. However, we noted no matters involving internal control and its operation, including controls for safeguarding securities, that we consider to be material weaknesses as defined above as of December 31, 2002.

This report is intended solely for the information and use of the Trustees, management and the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties.

 

PriceWaterhouseCoopers LLP

February 26, 2003
<PAGE>   1

                                                                   EXHIBIT 12-23

                           THE DETROIT EDISON COMPANY
                COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                        Three
                                        Months    Year Ended December 31
                                        Ended     ----------------------
                                        3/31/00   1999    1998     1997
                                        -------   ----    ----     ----

                                          (Millions, except for ratio)
<S>                                     <C>      <C>      <C>      <C>
Net income ..........................   $   97   $  434   $  418   $  417
                                        ------   ------   ------   ------

Taxes based on income:
   Income taxes .....................       52      211      260      288
   Municipal and state ..............        1        3        3        4
                                        ------   ------   ------   ------
     Total taxes based on income ....       53      214      263      292
                                        ------   ------   ------   ------

Fixed charges:
   Interest expense .................       69      284      278      282
   Allowance for funds used during
     construction ...................        -        4        -        -
   Interest factor of rents .........        9       34       34       34
                                        ------   ------   ------   ------
     Total fixed charges ............       78      322      312      316
                                        ======   ======   ======   ======

Earnings before taxes based on income
   and fixed charges ................   $  228   $  970   $  993   $1,025
                                        ======   ======   ======   ======

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges ..     2.92     3.01     3.18     3.24
</TABLE>
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

RHONDA JEAN EHMER A/K/A 

RHONDA J. EHMER A/K/A 

RHONDA EHMER F/K/A 

RHONDA JEAN BLANKENSHIP A/K/A 

RHONDA J. BLANKENSHIP,

Appellant,

v. Case No. 5D16-3534

U.S. BANK TRUST, N.A., AS TRUSTEE 

FOR LSF9 MASTER PARTICIPATION 

TRUST, LAKEVIEW LOAN SERVICING, 

LLC, HAMMOCK TRACE PRESERVE 

HOMEOWNERS AND JOEL BLANKENSHIP,

Appellees.

/

Opinion filed June 9, 2017

Appeal from the Circuit Court for

Brevard County,

Robert A. Wohn, Jr., Judge.

Mark P. Stopa, of the Stopa Law Firm, 

Tampa, for Appellant.

David Rosenberg, of Robertson, 

Anschutz & Schneid, P.L., Boca Raton, 

for Appellee U.S. Bank Trust, N.A.

No appearance for other Appellees.

ON CONCESSION OF ERROR

PER CURIAM.
2

Upon consideration of the concession of error filed by Appellee, U.S. Bank Trust, 

N.A., as Trustee for LSF9 Master Participation Trust, we reverse the trial court’s July 18, 

2016 Final Judgment of Foreclosure and remand the matter for entry of an involuntary 

dismissal in favor of the defendant.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

TORPY, WALLIS, and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.
#### § 550.255 What decommissioning information must accompany the DPP or DOCD?

A brief description of how you intend to decommission your wells, platforms, pipelines, and other facilities, and clear your site(s) must accompany your DPP or DOCD.
#### Zazzarino Construction Corp., Respondent, v City of New York, Appellant.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered April 11, 1978, which denied that part of defendant’s motion which sought to dismiss the second and third causes of action, unanimously, reversed, on the law and the facts and defendant’s motion to dismiss those causes granted, without prejudice to repleading for a claim in the amount of $138,630, without costs or disbursements. The plaintiff construction company entered into a contract with the defendant City of New York for soil consolidation work on certain streets in Co-Op City in The Bronx. Because the work could not be completed by the date provided in the contract, the plaintiff requested an extension of time. In connection with granting the extension of time, the City of New York required a letter containing a release of all claims except "the items of claim which are hereby reserved and are set forth in the annexed Bill of Particulars.” The bill of particulars shows a claim in the amount of $138,630. The second cause of action in dispute here is for damages of $100,000 for double handling of some of the fill because of the nonavailability of the work site. The third cause of action claimed $261,185 arising out of the need for additional fill. Plaintiff contends that it reserved a claim for additional fill but underestimated the amount required, and that its bill of particulars set forth the proper claims, and that the amount of money with respect thereto was tentative, and that by its release it did not waive its right to revise the amount of the claim reserved. The issue then is whether the bill of particulars should be considered as limiting only to categories or whether it limits to amounts as well. As we read the bill of particulars submitted in connection with the extension of time, it is specific as to the amount involved. Concur-Kupferman, J. P., Birns, Fein, Lane and Sandler, JJ.
Exhibit 4(d)

                              FEE WAIVER AGREEMENT

      THIS FEE WAIVER AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") is signed as of October 10,
2001 by Fund Asset Management, L.P. (the "Investment Adviser") and Merrill Lynch
Focus Value Fund, Inc. (the "Fund").

      WHEREAS, the Investment Adviser has entered into an Investment Advisory
Agreement, dated July 15, 1982, with the Fund whereby the Investment Adviser
provides certain management and investment advisory services to the Fund;

      WHEREAS, the Investment Adviser desires to waive a portion of its fees;

      WHEREAS, the Investment Adviser understands and intends that the Fund will
rely on this Agreement in preparing a registration statement on Form N-1A and in
accruing the expenses of the Fund for purposes of calculating net asset value
and for other purposes, and expressly permits the Fund to do so; and

      WHEREAS, the shareholders of the Fund will benefit from the ongoing
waivers by incurring lower Fund operating expenses than they would absent such
waivers.

      NOW, THEREFORE, the Investment Adviser agrees to waive 0.15% of its 1.00%
investment advisory fee, thereby reducing the investment advisory fee to 0.85%
of the Fund's average daily net assets for the period of this Agreement.

      This contractual fee waiver shall be effective through November 30, 2002
and for annual periods thereafter unless the Investment Adviser shall notify the
Fund of the termination of the contractual fee waiver not less than 30 days
prior to the end of the then annual period.

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Investment Adviser and the Fund have agreed to
this Fee Waiver Agreement as of the day and year first above written.

                                  FUND ASSET MANAGEMENT, L.P.

                                  By:         /s/ Terry K. Glenn
                                          ---------------------------------
                                  Name:       Terry K. Glenn
                                  Title:      Executive Vice President


                                  MERRILL LYNCH FOCUS VALUE FUND, INC.

                                  By:         /s/ Donald C. Burke
                                          ---------------------------------
                                  Name:       Donald C. Burke
                                  Title:      Vice President and Treasurer
§ 583.110 What is BOEM's authority for this part? ( a ) Pursuant to authority granted by section 8(k) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OSCLA), as amended (43 U.S.C. 1337(k)), the Secretary has authority to negotiate a noncompetitive agreement for the use of OCS sand, gravel, and/or shell resources: ( 1 ) In a program of, or project for, shore protection, beach restoration, or coastal wetlands restoration undertaken by a Federal, State, or local government agency; or
( 2 ) In a construction project, other than a project described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, that is funded in whole or in part by or authorized by the Federal Government.
( b ) The Secretary has delegated authority to BOEM to administer the negotiated noncompetitive agreement provisions of OCSLA and prescribe the rules and regulations necessary to carry out those provisions.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN RE: STEPHANIE HALL,

 Relator.

'

'

'

'

No. 08-16-00330-CV

AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

IN MANDAMUS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator, Stephanie Hall, has filed a mandamus petition asking that we issue the writ of 

mandamus against the Honorable Guy Herman, Presiding Judge of the Statutory Probate Courts. 

She asks that we compel Respondent to grant her motion to disqualify the Honorable Patricia 

Chew, Judge of the Probate Court No. 1 of El Paso County, Texas from presiding over the 

underlying case.1 The petition for writ of mandamus is denied. 

To be entitled to mandamus relief, a relator generally must meet two requirements. First, 

the relator must show that the trial court clearly abused its discretion. In re Prudential Insurance 

Company of America, 148 S.W.3d 124, 135 (Tex. 2004). Second, the relator must demonstrate 

that there is no adequate remedy by appeal. Id. at 136. Based on the record before us, we 

conclude that Relator has failed to establish she is entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we 

deny the motion for emergency relief and the petition for writ of mandamus.

January 25, 2017

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ.

 

1

 The underlying case is styled In the Matter of the Estate of Natalie Nicole Silva, Deceased (cause number 

2014CPR03042).