alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NUMBER 13-13-00389-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

JOSEPH COUCH, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the County Court at Law

of Aransas County, Texas.

ORDER TO FILE APPELLATE BRIEF

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Garza

Order Per Curiam

This cause is before the Court on appellant's motion for extension of time to file the 

brief. Appellant’s brief is due to be filed on September 12, 2013. Appellant is 

requesting until December 11, 2013, to file the appellate brief in this cause.

The Court, having fully examined and considered appellant's motion for extension 
2

of time to file the brief, is of the opinion that, in the interest of justice, appellant's motion for 

extension of time to file the brief should be granted with order. 

The Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART appellant's first motion for 

extension of time. This motion is GRANTED insofar as the Court will extend appellant's

deadline to file his brief until November 12, 2013. This motion is DENIED insofar as the 

Court will not allow an extension until December 11, 2013. Further motions for extension 

of time will not be favorably entertained by the Court.

The Clerk of this Court is ORDERED to serve a copy of this order on the Honorable 

Terry G. Collins by certified mail, return receipt requested.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish.

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed the

11th day of October, 2013.
# U.S. Department of Education

# Negotiated Rulemaking Public Hearing

# October 23, 2014

# Washington, D.C.
- pa-drexeluniv-1-complaint
- '03242062 Recipient Notification Letter' of '24-00447-F Philadelphia'
EXHIBIT 23

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 33-58750 on Form S-8 dated February 24,
1993; Registration Statement No. 33-58752 on Form S-8 dated February 24, 1993; Registration Statement No. 33-52487 on
Form S-8 dated March 2, 1994 and Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 to Registration Statement No. 33-52487 on Form S-8
dated March 3, 1994; Registration Statement No. 333-12743 on Form S-4 dated September 26, 1996; Registration Statement
No. 333-52575 on Form S-8 dated May 13, 1998; Registration Statement No. 333-57273 on Form S-8 dated June 19,
1998; Registration Statement No. 333-52238 on Form S-8 dated December 20, 2000; Registration Statement No. 333-74470 on
Form S-8 dated December 4, 2001of our report dated October 19, 2001, with respect to the consolidated financial statements incorporated by reference in the Annual
Report (Form 10-K) of Andrew Corporation for the year ended September 30, 2001.

/s/
Ernst & Young LLP
Chicago, Illinois
December, 20 2001

---

QuickLinks
#### Frederick Pius et al., Respondents, v. Alfred E. Temme, Appellant.

Motion by respondents to dismiss appeal denied, on condition that appellant perfect the appeal and be ready to argue or submit it at the February Term, beginning January 30, 1961. The appeal is ordered on the calendar for said term. The appellant’s brief must be served and filed on or before January 13, 1961. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Ughetta, Christ and Brennan, JJ., concur.
# United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 21-2745

___________________________ Eleazar Garcia lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v. U.S. Marshalls; Sarpy County Jail; David W. Coombs, Special Deputy U.S. Marshal, in his individual capacity; Jacob P. Betsworth, Special Deputy U.S.

Marshal, in his individual capacity lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants Jeff Davis, Sarpy County Sheriff, in his individual capacity

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Nebraska - Lincoln

____________ Submitted: December 20, 2021 Filed: December 28, 2021 [Unpublished]

____________ Before BENTON, KELLY, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM.Eleazar Garcia appeals the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment

on his claim against Sheriff Jeff Davis brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Upon de novo review, see Marsh v. Phelps Cnty., 902 F.3d 745, 751 (8th Cir. 2018) (standard of review), we affirm. We agree with the district court that Davis could not be held liable under a respondeat superior theory, see id. at 753-54 (as § 1983 claims based on vicarious liability are not cognizable, plaintiff could not hold county sheriff liable for deputy’s misconduct at county jail); and Garcia’s unsupported argument on appeal that Davis was personally involved in his medical treatment because Davis’s office would have approved treatment costs is speculative, see ACT, Inc. v. Sylvan Learning Sys., Inc., 296 F.3d 657, 666 (8th Cir. 2002) (on review of grant of summary judgment, non-movant is not entitled to benefit of unreasonable inferences that amount to mere conjecture). As Garcia’s notice of appeal did not indicate that he sought review of the district court’s earlier order dismissing his claims against the federal marshals, we lack jurisdiction to consider those claims. See Berdella v. Delo, 972 F.2d 204, 207-08 (8th Cir. 1992) (notice of appeal was insufficient to confer appellate jurisdiction over district court’s earlier order dismissing claim against separate defendant on distinct grounds, as it did not include defendant in caption, specified only later order, and did not evince intent to appeal earlier order). The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

1 The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska. -2-
U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

ATTORNEY APPEARANCE FORM

NOTE: In order to appear before this Court an attorney must either be a member in good

standing of this Court’s general bar or be granted leave to appear pro hac vice as provided for

by Local Rules 83.12 through 83.14.

In the Matter of Case Number:

AN APPEARANCE IS HEREBY FILED BY THE UNDERSIGNED AS ATTORNEY FOR:

NAME (Type or print)

SIGNATURE (Use electronic signature if the appearance form is filed electronically)

 s/

FIRM

STREET ADDRESS

CITY/STATE/ZIP

ID NUMBER (SEE ITEM 3 IN INSTRUCTIONS) TELEPHONE NUMBER

ARE YOU ACTING AS LEAD COUNSEL IN THIS CASE? YES NO 

ARE YOU ACTING AS LOCAL COUNSEL IN THIS CASE? YES NO 

ARE YOU A MEMBER OF THIS COURT’S TRIAL BAR? YES NO 

IF THIS CASE REACHES TRIAL, WILL YOU ACT AS THE TRIAL ATTORNEY? YES NO 

IF THIS IS A CRIMINAL CASE, CHECK THE BOX BELOW THAT DESCRIBES YOUR STATUS.

RETAINED COUNSEL APPOINTED COUNSEL 

Case: 1:12-cv-01395 Document #: 6 Filed: 02/28/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:29
204.2103 Procedures. ( a ) *Representations.* ( 1 ) ( i ) If the offeror selects “does not” in response to the provision at DFARS 252.204-7016, the contracting officer may rely on the representation, unless the contracting officer has an independent reason to question the representation. If the contracting officer has a reason to question the “does not” representation in FAR 52.204-26, FAR 52.212-3(v), or 252.204-7016, then the contracting officer shall consult with the requiring activity and legal counsel.
( ii ) If the offeror selects “does” in paragraph (c) of the provision at DFARS 252.204-7016, the offeror must complete the representation at DFARS 252.204-7017.
( 2 ) ( i ) If the offeror selects “will not” in paragraph (d) of the provision at DFARS 252.204-7017, the contracting officer may rely on the representation, unless the contracting officer has an independent reason to question the representation. If the contracting officer has a reason to question the “will not” representation in FAR 52.204-24 or DFARS 252.204-7017, then the contracting officer shall consult with the requiring activity and legal counsel.
( ii ) If an offeror selects “will” in paragraph (d) of the provision at DFARS 252.204-7017, the offeror must provide the information required by paragraph (e) of the provision. When an offeror completes paragraph (e) of either of the provisions at FAR 52.204-24 or DFARS 252.204-7017, the contracting officer shall— ( A ) Forward the offeror's representation and disclosure information to the requiring activity; and
( B ) Not award to the offeror unless the requiring activity advises— ( 1 ) For equipment, systems, or services that use covered telecommunications equipment or services as a substantial or essential component of any system, or as critical technology as part of any system, that a waiver as described at FAR 4.2104 has been granted; or
( 2 ) For equipment, systems, or services to be used to carry out covered missions that use covered defense telecommunications equipment or services as a substantial or essential component of any system, or as critical technology as part of any system, that a waiver as described at DFARS 204.2104 has been granted.
( b ) *Reporting.* If a contractor reports information to *https://dibnet.dod.mil* in accordance with the clause at FAR 52.204-25 or DFARS 252.204-7018, the Defense Cyber Crime Center will notify the contracting officer, who will consult with the requiring activity on how to proceed with the contract.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.8


April 19, 1999                            (LETTERHEAD OF NETFLIX.COM)




W. Barry McCarthy
113 Gallup Road
Princeton, NJ 08540


Dear Barry:

On behalf of NetFlix, Inc., it is my pleasure to offer to you for the position
of Chief Financial Officer reporting to Reed Hastings, CEO. Your annual salary
will be $170,000 to be paid bi-weekly. You will also receive an annual bonus
targeted at $20,000.00 based on mutually determined factors and paid in six-
month increments.

In addition, we are pleased to offer you an option to purchase 330,000 shares of
the Company's Common Stock, subject to final approval by the Board of Directors.
The purchase price will be equal to the fair market value at the date of the
grant in accordance with the NetFlix, Inc. 1997 Stock Plan. These options will
vest over four years with one year cliff vesting and monthly vesting thereafter.
Should NetFlix.com be acquired, 50% (fifty percent) of these unvested options,
or 12 months worth whichever is greater, will vest immediately. If the Company
is acquired prior to May 1, 2000, total vested options shall be 206,250.

The Company will provide relocation assistance for you and your family to
relocate from Princeton, New Jersey to the San Francisco Bay Area to a cap of
$50,000. This does not include your temporary travel and short term
accommodations until your family joins you (anticipated to be July 1999). These
expenses will be either pre-paid by the Company or receipted and reimbursed to
you.

As a full-time employee of NetFlix, you are entitled to standard company
employee benefits such as vacation, sick leave and full medical insurance.

It should be noted that as a condition of employment, you will be required to
sign an agreement which addresses the issues of confidentiality, conflicts of
interest, non-competition, and patent assignments. Additionally, on your first
day of employment, you will be required to provide the Company documentary
evidence of your identity and eligibility for employment in the United States to
satisfy the requirements of Employment Eligibility Verifications (Form I-9) as
required by Federal law.

While we hope and expect that this will be the beginning of a long and rewarding
employment relationship, your employment is at-will, and either you or NetFlix
may terminate this employment relationship at anytime and for any reason, with
or without cause. We will provide you severance of six months with continued
salary, and benefits if your employment is terminated for reason other than
cause during your first year of employment.

The entire NetFlix team is looking forward to working with you!

Sincerely,

/s/ Reed Hastings

Reed Hastings
CEO

Agreed to and Accepted:


    /s/ W. Barry McCarthy             4/19/99          4/19/99
    ---------------------             -------          -------
    W. Barry McCarthy                   Date           Start Date
Exhibit 32.2

Certification Pursuant to

18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

As Adopted Pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Quarterly
Report of Lubys, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended May 4, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, K. Scott Gray, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; 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: June 10, 2011 |  | By: |  | /s/ K. Scott Gray                                                                             
|                    |  |     |  | K. Scott Gray                                                                                 
|                    |  |     |  | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
#### Charles Sachs et al., Respondents, v. American Central Insurance Company et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

In an action to recover upon fire insurance policies (first cause of action) and to recover damages arising from an alleged breach by defendant Mar cato Elevator Company, Inc., of an elevator maintenance contract (second cause of action), the court, after a non jury trial, found in favor of plaintiffs on the first cause of action and in favor of defendant Elevator Company on the second cause of action (see 33 Mise 2d 816, 34 Mise 2d 687), and judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, was entered accordingly on May 10, 1962. On plaintiffs’ appeal, this court previously affirmed so much of the judgment as is in favor of the Elevator Company and against the plaintiffs (18 A D 2d 841). The instant appeal is by the defendant insurance companies from so much of the judgment as is against them and in favor of the plaintiffs. Each of the fire insurance policies contained a clause under “Exclusions” which provided: “Electrical Apparatus Clause: This Company shall not be liable for any loss resulting from any electrical injury or disturbance to electrical appliances, devices or wiring from artificial causes unless fire ensues and, if fire does ensue, this Company shall be liable only for its proportion of loss caused by such ensuing fire.” The Trial Justice held that the burden was on the defendant insurance companies to prove that the loss came within this exclusionary clause. He found as a fact that a fire had occurred in the elevator motor room in plaintiffs’ premises, causing damage to the equipment therein; that it was not possible to determine whether the fire preceded or followed a short circuit of the elevator equipment wiring; and that plaintiffs were entitled to recover on the first cause of action since the insurance companies had failed to sustain their burden of establishing that the loss fell within the exclusion (see 33 Mise 2d 816, 34 Mise 2d 687, *supra).*Judgment, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Brennan, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
|   | · | The                Covered Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)                or                15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;                and                    |
|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                     |
|   | · | The                information contained in the Covered Report fairly presents, in all                material respects, the financial condition and results of operations                of                the Company. |

| Date:                February 28, 2007 | /s/ John                R.                Biggar                                   John                R. BiggarExecutive                Vice President andChief                Financial OfficerPPL                Corporation |
|----------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
OAR Box 1830 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

111) IV-C-77 

Docket Number: 

A-87-11 

p.i 

Printed 11/13/2008 7:20:57AM Sheet 111 of 232 
P.2 

% y 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

OFFICE OF 

AIR AND RADIATION 

Honorable Guy Vander Jagt 

House of Representatives 

Washington, D. C. 20515 

Dear Mr. Vander Jagt: 

Thank you for your letter forwarding the concerns of your 

constituent, Jerry L. Hop, about our proposed gasoline volatility 

regulations and proposed regulations to control vapors generated 

during the refueling of motor vehicles by the use of onboard 

canisters. You asked us to forward to you any information we 

have on these topics. 

As you know, we are proposing to control gasoline f. 

volatility as one means of reducing the emissions of volatile 

organic compounds (VOCs). These compounds are a major 

precursor of ozone, which is this nation's most widespread 

and intractable air pollution problem. Over 60 urban areas 

currently do not meet the air quality standard established 

for ozone. Motor vehicles account for one-third to one-half 

of the total VOC emissions, and gasoline volatility reductions 

represent the single largest remaining source of VOC control 

available. 

There are a number of complex issues that must be analyzed 

when volatility control is considered. We have spent a great 

deal of time analyzing these issues and making our findings 

available to all interested parties for critique and comment. 

We held a public hearing in October and have received 

numerous additional comments on this rulemaking. We will 

fully consider all of these comments in developing our final 

regulatory analysis. 

With reference to Mr. Hop's comments regarding Stage II 

versus onboard canister controls, Section E (pages 31177-31182) 

of the August 19,1987 Federal Register explains EPA's overall 

rationale for proposing onboard controls. If you would like 

further details of our analysis, please contact Mr. Philip 

Carlson of the Standards Development and Support Branch of the 

Emission Control Technology Division, 2565 Plymouth Road, Ann 

Arbor, MI 48105 (FTS 374-8270 or Commercial (313) 668-4270). 
P.3 

J2 — • -**-

r* 

- 2 -

We wiii place the letter from Mr. Hop in our public 

docket and f»lly consider his connaents in the next phase of 

our rulemaking process. 

Let me know if we can be of further assistance. 

Sincerely yours, 

. :• nv 

Richard D. Wilson 

Director, Office of Mobile Sources 

cc: Docket A-87-11 

Docket A-85-21 

I
u.s. Department of Education 

Negotiated Rulemaking 

1990 K Street, NW, g'h Floor Conference Center 

Washington, D.C. 

Welcome 

Introductions 

Gainful employment 

September 9, 2013, 9:00am - S:OO pm 

September 10, 2013, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm 

September 11, 2013, 9:00am- 12:00 pm 

AGENDA 

Overview of the Negotiated Rulemaking Process 

Review and Adopt Protocols 

Petitions for Membership 

Overview of the Issue 

Formally finalize agenda 

Discussion of issue 

Next Steps 

• Meeting 2: October 21-23, 2013 

• Meeting Summary 

• Other
# DL_2ndqt_fy09

# Sheet1
January 29 , 2010

MEMORANDUM TO: Air Docket EP A - HQ - OAR- 2005 - 0161 SUBJECT: GREET M odel Spreadsheets Used in the Lifecycle A nalysis This memorandum accompanies four spreadsheet s placed on the docket of Version 1.8c.0 of the GREET model as used in the l ifecy cle analy sis for the final rulemaking. The spreadsheets were used to estimate gree nhouse gas emissions associated with the transport of sugarcane feedstock , the transportation and distribution of domestic and imported ethanol, production of agricultur al inputs (fertilizers and chemicals), and electricit y production. Results were input into separate impact calculation spreadsheets that are also available on the docket. Below is a summary

of modifications that were made in each spreadsheet from def ault values in GREET

. For more inform ation about these assumptions and the use of the GREET model to calculate lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions for the final rulemaking refer to RIA Chapter 2. 1. GREET1_8c_0_electric.xls  No changes made to domestic, Brazi l based on marginal mix as described in the RIA 2. GREET1_8c_0_ethanol_transport.xls  T&D GQ109 = 0 3. GREET1_8c_0_Fertilizer.xls  No changes, results just summarized for average production emissions 4. GREET1_8c_0_sugarcane_transport.xls  T&D AE7 = 42  T&D B41

–B42 = 3.8  T&D_Flowcharts F1377 = 19
M. P. No. 75-72.

#### Linda Lemoine *et al. v.*Paul Martineau *et al.*

Petition for writ of certiorari granted, and the writ may *941issue forthwith. The sole issue to be considered upon review is the constitutionality of G. L. 1956 (1968 Reenactment) §22-4-3. The instant case is consolidated for argument with the case of *State*v. *Choiniere,*114 R. I. 941, 335 A.2d 343 (1975), and is specially assigned to the May 1975 calendar for hearing. The petitioner is directed to file brief on or before April 21, 1975, and respondent to file brief on or before May 5, 1975. The stay granted in the order on March 17, 1975, shall continue in effect until further order of court.

*Lovett & Linder, Ltd., Robert M. Brennan, Richard Bruce Feinstein,*of counsel, for petitioners. *Higgins, Cavanagh & Cooney, Kenneth P. Borden,*for respondents.
Opinion filed October 1 6 , 2020



### In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

_____ _ _____ 

### No. 11

- 19

- 00 067

- C V

_____ _ _____



### BEVERLY AYER , Appellant

V.

ROBERT STOREY WILSON, D.O. , Appellee

On Appeal from the 266 th District Court

Erath County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CV35440

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant

, Beverly Ayer

, ha s filed in this court a motion to di smis s this appeal.

In the motion, Appellant state s that the parties to this appeal “have reached an

agreement to compromise and settle ” the issues involved in this appeal. Appellant

asks this court to dismiss the appeal and to tax costs on appeal against the party

incurring same

. I n accordance with Appellant’ s request, we dismiss th is appeal. See

T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1 (a)(1)

.2

The motion to dismiss is granted, and th e appeal is dismissed

.

PER CURIAM

October 1 6 , 2020

Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., Stretcher , J., and Wright, S.C.J. 1

Willson, J., not participating.

1 Jim R. Wright, Senior Chief Justice (Retired), Court of Appeals, 11th District of Texas at Eastland, sitting by assignment.