alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 03- 13 -00025- CV

In the Third Court of Appeals

Austin, Texas



### Jerry Scarbrough

, et al

Appellant

v.

Helen Purser, et al.

Appellee

On Appeal from the 146 th 

### Judicial District Court of

Bell County, Cause No. 236,117-B

SUGGESTION OF DEATH for MELISSA DEATON,

TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS:

COMES NOW, Counsel for Melissa Deaton, and informs this Court

that Appellant Melissa Deaton, age 50, passed away on December 15,

2015. No estate has yet been opened, but it is presumed that Ms. Deaton

would want this appeal continued by her estate to clear her name. ACCEPTED

03-13-00025-CV

8314371

THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

12/21/2015 1:16:01 AM

JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERKRespectfully submitted,

____ /s/ MB CHIMENE

__________

THE CHIMENE LAW FIRM

Mich ele Barber Chimene

TBN 04207500

2827 Linkwood Dr.

Houston, TX. 77025

PH 713 474

- 5538

No fax available

michelec@airmail.net

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

By my electronic signature, the undersigned certifies that she has served a

copy of this Motion on Daryl L. Moore, daryl@heightslaw.com

, and JoAnn

Storey, storeyj@heights law.com

. via ECF and/or email on this the 21 th of

December, 2015

.

_______ /s/ MB CHIMENE

________
*Wegener          Corporation and Subsidiaries*

**Certification        of Chief Executive Officer **

**Pursuant        to 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**As        Adopted Pursuant to**

**Section        906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

|   | **•** |   | fully                  complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the                  Securities                  Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|-------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | **•** |   | the                  information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                  respects, the financial condition and results of operations of                  the                  Company. |
|--------|-------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |   |   | /s/                  Robert A. Placek |
|--------|--------|--------|---------------------------------------|
|   |   |   |                                  |   |
|   |   |   | **Name:**                             | **Robert                  A. Placek** |
|   |   |   | **Title:**                            | **Chairman                  of the Board, President and Chief Executive Office (Principal Executive                  Officer)** |
|   |   |   | **Date:**                             | **December                  1, 2005** |

----
DAVID H. WILSON , Petitioner,

v. STATE OF FLORIDA , Respondent. ___________________________/ IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
CASE NO. 1D 15

- 0852

Opinion filed May 8, 2015. Petition Seeking Belated Appeal

-- Original Jurisdiction

. David H. Wilson, pro se , Petitioner. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Respondent.

PER CURIAM. The petition seeking a belated appeal of the order rendered on August 5, 2014, denying petitioner’s second amended motion to correct illegal sentence in Taylor County Circuit Court case numbers 1989

- 409

- CF, 1990

- 39

- CF, 1990

- 317

- CF, and
1992

- 355

- CF, is granted. Upon issuance of mandate, a copy of this opinion shall be furnished to the clerk of the lower tribunal for treatment as a notice of appeal. LEWIS, C.J., WETHERELL and RAY, JJ., CONCUR.
2933.102 General. (c)(1) The relevant contracting officer coordinates DOL's response to procurement protests filed with the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), in consultation with DOL legal counsel at the Office of the Solicitor. ( 2 ) The authority of the Agency Head under FAR 33.102(b) to determine that a solicitation, proposed award, or award does not comply with the requirements of law or regulation is delegated to the HCA.
35.006 Contracting methods and contract type. ( a ) In R&D acquisitions, the precise specifications necessary for sealed bidding are generally not available, thus making negotiation necessary. However, the use of negotiation in R&D contracting does not change the obligation to comply with part 6.
( b ) Selecting the appropriate contract type is the responsibility of the contracting officer. However, because of the importance of technical considerations in R&D, the choice of contract type should be made after obtaining the recommendations of technical personnel. Although the Government ordinarily prefers fixed-price arrangements in contracting, this preference applies in R&D contracting only to the extent that goals, objectives, specifications, and cost estimates are sufficient to permit such a preference. The precision with which the goals, performance objectives, and specifications for the work can be defined will largely determine the type of contract employed. The contract type must be selected to fit the work required.
( c ) Because the absence of precise specifications and difficulties in estimating costs with accuracy (resulting in a lack of confidence in cost estimates) normally precludes using fixed-price contracting for R&D, the use of cost-reimbursement contracts is usually appropriate (see subpart 16.3). The nature of development work often requires a cost-reimbursement completion arrangement (see 16.306(d)). When the use of cost and performance incentives is desirable and practicable, fixed-price incentive and cost-plus-incentive-fee contracts should be considered in that order of preference.
( d ) When levels of effort *can* be specified in advance, a short-duration fixed-price contract *may* be useful for developing system design concepts, resolving potential problems, and reducing Government risks. Fixed-price contracting may also be used in minor projects when the objectives of the research are well defined and there is sufficient confidence in the cost estimate for price negotiations. (See 16.207.)
( e ) Projects having production requirements as a follow-on to R&D efforts normally should progress from cost-reimbursement contracts to fixed-price contracts as designs become more firmly established, risks are reduced, and production tooling, equipment, and processes are developed and proven. When possible, a final commitment to undertake specific product development and testing should be avoided until ( 1 ) preliminary exploration and studies have indicated a high degree of probability that development is feasible and
( 2 ) the Government has determined both its minimum requirements and desired objectives for product performance and schedule completion.
[48 FR 42352, Sept. 19, 1983, as amended at 50 FR 1744, Jan. 11, 1985; 50 FR 52429, Dec. 23, 1985]
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-30682 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus SHEILA WALLEN HEARD, a/k/a Sheila Clemons; a/k/a Joan A. Hynes; a/k/a Charlene Ourso; a/k/a Jill Marie Heavey, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 97-CV-1378-D

- - - - - - - - - - July 23, 1998 Before JONES, SMITH and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Sheila Wallen Heard, federal prisoner # 22535-034, filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence by a person in federal custody arguing, among other things, her trial counsel had been ineffective for failing to file an appeal. This is the only issue before the court as it isNo. 97-30682 -2- the only issue for which a certificate of appealability was issued. A criminal defendant has a constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel in his first appeal as of right. See Evitts v. Lucey , 469 U.S. 387, 393-95 (1985). The failure of counsel to perfect an appeal upon request of his client may constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. See United States v. Gipson , 985 F.2d 212, 215 (5th Cir. 1993). The Constitution requires that a defendant be fully informed of his right to appeal, including “the procedure and time limits involved and of his right to appointed counsel on appeal.” Childs v. Collins , 995 F.2d 67, 69 (5th Cir. 1993). A petitioner may be entitled to habeas relief if his attorney failed to inform him properly of his appellate rights, including his right to appeal, the procedure and time limits involved, and the right to appointed counsel on appeal. Norris v. Wainwright , 588 F.2d 130, 134-35 (5th Cir. 1979). The district court did not address this aspect of the ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Accordingly, the dismissal of the § 2255 motion on this point is VACATED and the case REMANDED to the district court for additional proceedings. Additionally, Heard’s motion for appointment of counsel on appeal is DENIED. VACATED IN PART and REMANDED; MOTION DENIED.
#### 3027.305 Administration of Patent Rights Clauses.
#### 3052.217-99 Department of Labor safety and health regulations for ship repairing (USCG).

As prescribed in USCG guidance at (HSAR) 48 CFR 3017.9000(a) and (b), insert the following clause:

# Department of Labor Safety and Health Regulations for Ship Repair (DEC 2003)

Nothing contained in this contract shall relieve the Contractor of any obligations it may have to comply with—

(a) The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 651, *et seq.*);

(b) The Safety and Health Regulations for Ship Repairing (29 CFR part 1915); or

(c) Any other applicable Federal, State, and local laws, codes, ordinances, and regulations.

(End of clause)
IV 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 88 

Expressing the sense of Congress that the Secretary of State in coordination 

with the Secretary of the Treasury should investigate the use of 

cryptocurrencies by Hamas (also known as Harakat al-Muqawama alIslamiya), and whether any cryptocurrencies were exchanged between 

Hamas and the United Nations Relief and Works Agency. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 6, 2024 

Mr. BURCHETT submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services, and in addition to the 

Committee on Foreign Affairs, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions 

as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of Congress that the Secretary of State 

in coordination with the Secretary of the Treasury should 

investigate the use of cryptocurrencies by Hamas (also 

known as Harakat al-Muqawama al-Islamiya), and 

whether any cryptocurrencies were exchanged between 

Hamas and the United Nations Relief and Works Agency. 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), That the Secretary of State in coordination 

3 with the Secretary of the Treasury should investigate the 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HCON 88 IH 

1 use of cryptocurrencies by Hamas (also known as Harakat 

2 al-Muqawama al-Islamiya), and whether any 

3 cryptocurrencies were exchanged between Hamas and the 

4 United Nations Relief and Works Agency. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
# C_2020054EN.01000101.xml

| 17.2.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 54/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.2.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 54/1

---

Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

(2020/C 54/01)

Last publication

OJ C 45, 10.2.2020

Past publications

OJ C 36, 3.2.2020

OJ C 27, 27.1.2020

OJ C 19, 20.1.2020

OJ C 10, 13.1.2020

OJ C 432, 23.12.2019

OJ C 423, 16.12.2019

These texts are available on:

EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

---
226.7103 Procedure. In considering acquisitions for award through the section 8(a) program (subpart 219.8 and FAR subpart 19.8) or in making set-aside decisions under subpart 219.5 and FAR subpart 19.5 for acquisitions in support of a base closure or realignment, the contracting officer shall— ( a ) Determine whether there is a reasonable expectation that offers will be received from responsible business concerns located in the vicinity of the military installation that is being closed or realigned.
( b ) If offers can not be expected from business concerns in the vicinity, proceed with section 8(a) or set-aside consideration as otherwise indicated in part 219 and FAR part 19.
( c ) If offers can be expected from business concerns in the vicinity— ( 1 ) Consider section 8(a) only if at least one eligible 8(a) contractor is located in the vicinity.
( 2 ) Set aside the acquisition for small business only if at least one of the expected offers is from a small business located in the vicinity.
[60 FR 29499, June 5, 1995, as amended at 63 FR 41974, Aug. 6, 1998; 67 FR 11438, Mar. 14, 2002]
- Skip to main content
- About Us
- Contact Us
- FAQs
-  Language Assistance ****   - English
  - español
  - 中文: 繁體版
  - Việt-ngữ
  - 한국어
  - Tagalog
  - Русский

U.S. Department of Education

U.S. Department of Education

            - Student Loans
            - Grants
            - Laws
            - Data

|                                        |
|----------------------------------------|
|                                        | PurposeFunding StatusEligibilityLaws, Regs, & GuidanceApplicant InfoResourcesAwardsFAQsPerformanceContacts |  |
| Office of Postsecondary Education Home |
|                                        |

## FY 2021

                - New award(s):    PDF  (79K)
                - Project Abstract(s):    PDF (186K)

FIPSE Home

----

 

 Printable view

## How Do I Find...

          - Student loans, forgiveness
          - Higher Education Rulemaking
          - College accreditation
          - Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)
          - FERPA
          - FAFSA
          - 1098, tax forms

More >

## Information About...

          - Elevating Teaching
          - Early Learning
          - Engage Every Student
          - Unlocking Career Success
          - Cybersecurity

 

----

*Our mission*

Student Loans
Repaying LoansDefaulted LoansLoan ForgivenessLoan Servicers

Grants & Programs
Apply for Pell GrantsGrants ForecastApply for a Grant

Laws & Guidance
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)FERPACivil RightsNew IDEA Website

Data & Research
Education StatisticsPostsecondary Education DataED Data ExpressNation's Report CardWhat Works ClearinghouseOpen Data PlatformCOVID Relief Data

About Us
Contact UsED OfficesJobsPress ReleasesFAQsRecursos en españolBudget, PerformancePrivacy Program

----

          - Notices
          - FOIA
          - Privacy Policy
          - Accessibility
          - Security
          - Information quality
          - Inspector General
          - Whitehouse.gov
          - USA.gov
          - Benefits.gov
          - Regulations.gov
          - vote.gov
#### Jean Taft, as Administrator of the Estate of Malvine B. Taft, Deceased, et al., Appellants, v. Kew Gardens General Hospital, Respondent.

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by the decedent (plaintiff administrator’s intestate) when she fell in defendant’s premises during a visit to a patient, and by her husband to recover damages for loss of services and for medical expenses, plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered May 10, 1961 after a jury trial, in favor of defendant, upon the dismissal of the complaint at the end of the plaintiffs’ case on the issue of liability. The decedent died prior to the trial, and her cause of action was continued by her husband as administrator. Judgment affirmed, without costs. No opinion. Beldock, P. J., Christ, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>  UT
<CIK>   0000092487
<NAME>  SOUTHWESTERN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY
<SUBSIDIARY>
<NUMBER> 005
<NAME> SOUTHWESTERN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                  MAR-31-2000
<BOOK-VALUE>                                     PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                       1,849,780
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                         5,820
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                            150,502
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                            5,052
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                     92,071
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  2,103,225
<COMMON>                                          135,660
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                         245,000
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                               280,751
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                    661,411
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                         4,706
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                              605,527
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                 13,289
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                         150,000
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                      45,595
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                               0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                             0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                        0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                    622,697
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                   2,103,225
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                         212,156
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                                1,428
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                        187,370
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                        188,798
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                            23,358
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                   (233)
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                     23,125
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           14,835
<NET-INCOME>                                        8,290
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                            57
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                       8,233
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                           15,500
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                           9,178
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                             25,266
<EPS-BASIC>                                           0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           0


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-29-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-29-1998
<CASH>                                          38,669
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   15,056
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     40,511
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                96,159
<PP&E>                                         171,720
<DEPRECIATION>                                  73,626
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 200,787
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           38,919
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           188
<OTHER-SE>                                      77,122
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   200,787
<SALES>                                         68,785
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                68,785
<CGS>                                           62,704
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   62,704
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 617
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,280)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,193)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,087)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,087)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.16)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.16)
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 31.2****Certifications**I, Leldon E. Echols, certify that:1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Centex Corporation;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures [as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)] andinternal control over financial reporting [as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and15d-15(f)] for the registrant and have:(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;(b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control overfinancial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regardingthe reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for externalpurposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal controls over financial reporting.Date:November 1, 2005 /s/ LELDON E. ECHOLS