alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 16

- 00401

- CR

ANTHONY DAVID GALVAN APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

----------

FROM TH E 297TH DISTRICT COU RT OF TARRANT COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NO. 1439 828D

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



### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 

### AND JUDGMENT

----------

We have considered “ Appellant ’ s Motion t o Dismiss Appeal. ” The motion

complies with rule 42.2(a) of the rules of appellate procedur e. Tex. R. App. P.

42.2(a). No decision of this court having been delivered before we received this

motion, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P.

42.2(a), 43.2(f).

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2

Because t he appellant simultaneously f iled “ Appellant’s Motion to E xpedite

M andate (Unopposed) ” in th i s appeal

, we grant the motion and direct the clerk of

this court to issue mandate within three days of the date this opinion issues

. See

Tex. R. App. P. 18.1(c).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: WALKER , MEIER, and GABRIEL, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App

. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: August 3, 2017
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEYGENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

OUILD c. MANN 

AlTO”“=. 0.*.“aL 

xamrab1eQruyl!abe68,tllwrma 

Oam#?8tiaaa4Roelautiar(3eodttw 

fbrue at Repm8atstlvas 

Irues& Tam8 

Derr sir1 

In your letter aiApLTl7, 

valar85% eueb eollec 

QLW p ur p mea for l 

the rMt t& t th8 

t& t t& e p er lo d a t 

o m 8o tl.m 1 8 ta k m 

b 8 a -ta d 80- 

P o ur a ver y tmllg 

AflTo EIIcpM - OF 73xA.s
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                      64,356,000
<SECURITIES>                                23,391,000
<RECEIVABLES>                              127,816,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 7,154,000
<INVENTORY>                                 92,829,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           338,994,000
<PP&E>                                     252,342,000
<DEPRECIATION>                             115,437,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             717,613,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      207,109,000
<BONDS>                                     69,340,000
<COMMON>                                    47,205,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                 284,508,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               717,613,000
<SALES>                                    493,851,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           500,026,000
<CGS>                                      180,965,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              488,814,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,807,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             11,212,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 4,597,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          6,615,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 6,615,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Workshop on Analysis of Standard 90.1-1999 

February 17,2000 

AGENDA 

Introduction and Purpose 

Format of Workshop 

Background 

Proposed Methodology 

What we would like you to do 

Qualitative analysis 

Quantitative analysis 

Basis for energy savings 

Past work: What we looked at last summer 

Enhancements proposed 

Overview of approach 

Why a generic building approach 

Generic building prototype 

Modeled systems 

Building descriptions 

Representative climates 

Commercial building types 

Permutations 

Building characterization issues 

Average window to wall ratio (WWR) 

Variations in WWR 

Determining envelope requirements 

Lighting power densities 

Mechanical systems 

Aggregation of energy use index (EUI) data 

EUI Issues 

Calculation of utilization indices 

What we can do. 

Scheduled Speakers - additional comments 

Jason Glazer, GUARD Analysis, Inc. 

James A. Ranfone, American Gas Association 

Harold L. Crowder, Jr., Virginia Power 

Attendees - additional comments 

C:\DATA\VOLCO~90.1-99Detemination\WorkshopgendaOOO27.d, February 16, 2000 

 6450-01-P COMMENT 02AA
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 51 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. CON. RES. 51

                  To correct the enrollment of S. 140.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           November 15, 2018

  Mr. Thune submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
                        considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
                  To correct the enrollment of S. 140.

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That in the enrollment of S. 140, an Act to amend the White Mountain 
Apache Tribe Water Rights Quantification Act of 2010 to clarify the use 
of amounts in the WMAT Settlement Fund, the Secretary of the Senate 
shall amend the title so as to read: ``A bill to authorize 
appropriations for the Coast Guard, and for other purposes.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### 22.1001 Definitions.

As used in this subpart—

*Contractor* includes a subcontractor at any tier whose subcontract is subject to the provisions of the statute.

*Multiple year contracts* means contracts having a term of more than 1 year regardless of fiscal year funding. The term includes multi-year contracts (see 17.103).

*United States* means the 50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Johnston Island, Wake Island, and the outer Continental Shelf as defined in the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331, *et seq.*), but does not include any other place subject to U.S. jurisdiction or any U.S. base or possession within a foreign country (29 CFR 4.112).

*Wage and Hour Division* means the unit in the Department of Labor to which is assigned functions of the Secretary of Labor under the Service Contract Labor Standards statute.

*Wage determination* means a determination of minimum wages or fringe benefits made under 41 U.S.C. 6703 or 6707(c) applicable to the employment in a given locality of one or more classes of service employees.

[54 FR 19816, May 8, 1989, as amended at 61 FR 39207, July 26, 1996; 66 FR 2130, Jan. 10, 2001; 68 FR 28082, May 22, 2003; 71 FR 36932, June 28, 2006; 77 FR 75776, Dec. 21, 2012; 79 FR 24205, Apr. 29, 2014; 79 FR 74550, Dec. 15, 2014; 83 FR 42573, Aug. 22, 2018]
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v George Jenco, Appellant.

— Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered March 8, 1978, convicting him of forgery, *951criminal possession of stolen property, criminal possession of a forged instrument, and attempted grand larceny, all in the second degree, and criminal impersonation, upon a jury verdict, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to indeterminate prison terms of from three to six years each on the forgery and possession of a forged instrument counts, two to four years each on the possession of stolen property and attempted grand larceny counts, and one year on the criminal impersonation count, with all sentences to run concurrently. Judgment modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the sentences imposed on the convictions for forgery and possession of a forged instrument to two to four years each, with said sentences to be concurrent with the other sentences. As so modified, judgment affirmed and case remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (subd 5). In our view, the sentences were excessive to the extent indicated. In addition, it is our view that two of the prosecutor’s questions during his cross-examination of the defendant were improper (see *People v Mariable;*58 AD2d 877). However, in view of the overwhelming evidence of guilt presented in this case, we hold that these errors were harmless (see *People v Mariable, supra; People*v *Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230). We have examined defendant’s remaining points and find them to be without merit. Suozzi, J. P., O’Connor, Gulotta and Cohalan, JJ., concur.
##### 



Exhibit 10.6
 JO-ANN STORES, INC.
(formerly Fabri-Centers of America, Inc.)
1998 INCENTIVE COMPENSATION PLAN AS AMENDED
 
 1. Purpose
  2. Definitions
 Affiliate and Associate
 Award
 Board of Directors
 Change in Control
   Page 1




---



##### 



Class A Shares
 Class B Shares
 Code
 Committee
 Company
 Covered Employees
 Director
 Exchange Act
 Fair Market Value
 Page 2




---



##### 



Incentive Compensation Award
 Incentive Stock Option
 Participant
 Performance Criteria
 Performance Goal
 Restricted Stock
 Rule 16b-3
 Shares
 Stock Appreciation Right
 Stock Award
 Stock Equivalent Unit
 Stock Option
 Stock Purchase Right
 Subsidiary
 3. Eligibility
  Page 3




---



##### 



4. Administration
 Committee
 Awards Subject to Section 16(b) of the Exchange Act
 Awards Subject to Section 162(m) of the Code
 Delegation
 Decisions Final
 5. Shares Available under Plan; Limitations on Incentive
 Maximum Aggregate Number of Shares
 Page 4




---



##### 



Maximum Number of Shares and Amount of Incentive Compensation Award for Each Participant.
       Page 5




---



##### 



Charging of Shares
 Adjustment
 6. Awards
 Types of Awards
 Stock Appreciation Right
 Stock Award
 Stock Option
 Page 6




---



##### 



Incentive Compensation Award
 Stock Purchase Right
  Grant of Awards
 Page 7




---



##### 



7. Performance-Based Awards under Section 162(m) of the Code
 Selection of Participants and Establishment of Performance Goals
 Performance Criteria
 8. Deferral of Payment
  Page 8




---



##### 



9. Payment of Exercise Price
 Manner of Payment
 Use of Restricted Stock
 10. Taxes Associated with Award
  11. Termination of Employment
  12. Termination of Awards under Certain Conditions
  Page 9




---



##### 



13. Change in Control; Acquisition of the Company
 Change in Control
    Acquisition of the Company
 Page 10




---



##### 



14. Amendment or Suspension of this Plan; Amendment of Outstanding Awards
 Amendment or Suspension of this Plan
 Amendment of Outstanding Awards
 15. Nonassignability
  16. Governing Law
  17. Rights of Employees
  Page 11




---



##### 



18. Effective and Termination Dates
 Effective Date
 Termination Date
 Page 12
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 5.0.3

Eastern Division

Julie Barnabee

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:12−cv−02886

Honorable Ruben Castillo

Alta College, Inc., et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Thursday, April 19, 2012:

 MINUTE entry before Honorable Ruben Castillo:After a careful review of this

recently removed state court complaint, said complaint is dismissed without prejudice to

the filing of a timely motion to remand or a proper amended federal complaint. The

parties are directed to immediately exhaust all settlement possibilities for this dispute prior

to filing any further pleadings.Mailed notice(rao, )

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:12-cv-02886 Document #: 5 Filed: 04/19/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:56
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 28 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. J. RES. 28

  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
 United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Administrator of the 
    Environmental Protection Agency relating to accidental release 
prevention requirements of risk management programs under the Clean Air 
                                  Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 2, 2017

  Mr. Inhofe (for himself, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Barrasso, Mr. Johnson, Mr. 
  Moran, and Mrs. Fischer) introduced the following joint resolution; 
 which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 
                              Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
 United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Administrator of the 
    Environmental Protection Agency relating to accidental release 
prevention requirements of risk management programs under the Clean Air 
                                  Act.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the 
rule submitted by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
Agency relating to accidental release prevention requirements of risk 
management programs under the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) 
(84 Fed. Reg. 4594; January 13, 2017), and such rule shall have no 
force or effect.
                                 <all>
```
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-08-00628-CV

William “Bill” Moriarty; Moriarty & Associates, LLC; Diane Hyatt;

and Diane Hyatt & Associates, Appellants

v.

CH2M Hill, Inc.; and Ken Hall, Appellees

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 53RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. D-1-GN-08–2524, HONORABLE SCOTT H. JENKINS, JUDGE PRESIDING

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

Appellants William “Bill” Moriarty; Moriarty & Associates, LLC; Diane Hyatt;

and Diane Hyatt & Associates have filed Appellants’ Unopposed Motion to Transfer Record to

Appeal No. 03-08-00665-CV and Dismiss Appeal No. 03-08-00628-CV. Appellants represent that

they have settled their differences with appellees in this appeal, and that neither the appellees in this

appeal nor the appellees in cause number 03-08-00665-CV oppose the transfer of the record.

We grant the motion. The record in this appeal is transferred to cause number 03-08-

00665-CV. This appeal is dismissed. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1.

 

G. Alan Waldrop, Justice

Before Justices Patterson, Pemberton and Waldrop

Dismissed on Appellants’ Motion

Filed: May 22, 2009
#### Rodgers *v.*McGuoirk, sheriff.

April 16, 1913.

Atkinson, J.

An action for damages was instituted against the sheriff for failure to make the money due according to the "face of an execution placed in his hands for enforcement. The defendant filed an answer denying the material allegations of the petition. The trial of a claim case' arising on a levy under the execution immediately preceded the call for trial of the action against the sheriff. The claim case resulted in the direction of a verdict finding the property not subject. When the case against the sheriff was called, both sides announced ready, and counsel for the plaintiff stated that his case was substantially as disclosed by the evidence introduced on the trial of the claim case. *Held,*that it was erroneous, at this stage of the hearing of the case against the sheriff, for the judge to decide that the plaintiff was not entitled to a judgment, and to enter a judgment declaring that it appeared that the issues involved in the case were adjudicated adversely to the plaintiff in the claim case; and thereupon to discharge the sheriff and dismiss the case against him.

*Judgment reversed.*

*All the Justices concur.*

*665Money rule. Before Judge Edwards. Douglas superior court. March 21, 1912.

*Robert L. Rodgers,*for plaintiff. *B. G. Griggs,*for defendant.
#### KILEY v. NEW YORK CITY RY. CO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

January 17, 1906.)

Street Railroads—Collision with Team—Contributory Negligence.

Evidence that, when the driver of a covered van was about the middle of the block driving south, he looked back and saw a car about 200 feet away, coming rapidly in the same direction, and, after continuing to drive in the same direction for some "distance, he turned, and when about three-quarters of the length of the van was across the track, was struck by the car, fails to show the driver was free of contributory negligence.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 44, Cent. Dig. Street Railroads, §§ 213, 214.]

Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Seventh District.

Action by Mary E. Kiley against the New York City Railway Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.

Reversed.

Argued before SCOTT, P. J., and BLANCHARD and DOW-LING, JJ.

William E. Weaver, for appellant.

Philip J. Britt, for respondent.

DOWLING, J.

While it may well be said that from the testimony given in this case that the defendant is shown to have been guilty of negligence, the testimony does not show that the plaintiff’s driver was free therefrom. The accident occurred at or near the middle of the block, where the rights of the parties were unequal; the defendant having a superior right of way. The principal witness for the plaintiff was a person, who first claimed to have been the driver, but who, it subsequently appeared, was seated at the left side of the driver. He testified that a large, covered, two-horse furniture van was being driven south along the west side of Third avenue between Thirty-Eighth and Thirty-Ninth streets; that before reaching the middle of the block they observed the roadway obstructed by other vehicles ; that the witness then looked back, and saw a south-bound car about 300 feet away, and approaching rapidly; that they continued driving south, for what distance he is unable to state, and then turning to the east, had got about three-quarters of the length of the van across the track, when it was struck by the car.

The driver of the van was not produced, nor his absence accounted for, and there is no other witness in the case that presents the situation as any more favorable for the plaintiff. This testimony is insufficient to show that the driver of the van was free from contributory negligence. Some testimony should have been given tending to show how far the driver proceeded after he was told of the approaching car before he turned to go upon the track. Lazar v. N. Y. City Ry. Co. (Sup.) 94 Supp. 9.

Judgment reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.
#### 215.570 Solicitation provision.

Use the provision at 252.215-7016, Notification to Offerors—Postaward Debriefings, in competitive negotiated solicitations for contract awards valued at $10 million or more, including solicitations using FAR part 12 procedures for the acquisition of commercial products and commercial services.

[87 FR 15810, Mar. 18, 2022, as amended at 88 FR 6583, Jan. 31, 2023]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

TRUSTEES OF THE SUBURBAN TEAMSTERS )

OF NORTHERN ILLINOIS WELFARE AND )

PENSION FUNDS, )

)

Plaintiffs, ) 

) No. 12 C 1853

v. )

) Judge Der-Yeghiayan

BOLINGBROOK REDI-MIX COMPANY )

an Illinois corporation and ) Magistrate Judge Schenkier

ROBERT A. BRIGHT, Individually, )

)

Defendants. )

MOTION FOR DEFAULT & JUDGMENT IN SUM CERTAIN

NOW COME the Plaintiffs, TRUSTEES OF THE SUBURBAN TEAMSTERS OF 

NORTHERN ILLINOIS WELFARE AND PENSION FUNDS, by and through their

attorneys, JOHN J. TOOMEY, and ARNOLD AND KADJAN, and, pursuant to FRCP 55,

move for entry of an order of default and judgment in sum certain. In support of their 

Motion, Plaintiffs state as follows:

1. Suit was filed on March 24, 2012 for collection of delinquent ERISA 

contributions, plus attorneys’ fees, costs, and interest, under 29 U.S.C. 1132(g)(2). 

2. Service was made upon Bolingbrook Redi-Mix Company, an Illinois

corporation, on March 26, 2012, and a copy of the proof of service was filed with the court 

on April 4, 2012.

3. Service was made upon Robert A. Bright, Individually, on March 26, 2012, 

and a copy of the proof of service was filed with the court on April 4, 2012.

4. More than 21 days have passed without any response to the Complaint by 

Defendants, so that Defendants are now in default. 
2

5. As supported by the attached Affidavits, the sums due on the Complaint 

are: 

 $84,110.90 Pension 

 $11,091.81 Welfare

 $48,345.37 Pension Fund installment note

 $6,531.68 Welfare Fund installment note

 $925.00 Attorneys fees

 $439.00 Court costs

 $151,443.76

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for the entry of an order:

A. Finding Defendants, Bolingbrook Red-Mix Company, an Illinois 

corporation and Robert A. Bright, Individually; and

B. Awarding judgment in favor of Plaintiffs, TRUSTEES OF THE 

SUBURBAN TEAMSTERS OF NORTHERN ILLINOIS WELFARE 

AND PENSION FUNDS in the amount of $151,443.76.

TRUSTEES OF THE SUBURBAN TEAMSTERS

OF NORTHERN ILLINOIS WELFARE AND 

PENSION FUNDS

s/John J. Toomey

ARNOLD AND KADJAN

203 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 1650

Chicago, IL 60601

Telephone No.: (312) 236-0415

Facsimile No.: (312) 341-0438

Dated: April 18, 2012
Exhibit
23.1





CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





The Board
of Directors


PhotoMedex,
Inc. and Subsidiaries:





We hereby
consent to the incorporation by reference of our report dated March 20, 2009,
relating to the consolidated financial statements and the effectiveness of
internal controls over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K, in
the following documents: in the Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008;
in the registration statements (Nos. 333-58450, 333-72580, 333-91926,
333-106605, 333-120921 (and amendment 1), 333-125980, 333-132654 and 333-139031)
on Form S-3; in the registration statements (Nos. 333-100609and 333-121864) on
Form S-4; and in the registration statements (Nos. 333-30298, 333-114181,
333-124034, 333-132655, 333-132656 and 333-146558) on Form S-8 of PhotoMedex,
Inc.





/s/
Amper, Politziner & Mattia, LLP





Edison,
New Jersey


March 20,
2009