alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Order entered January 8, 2020

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-01147-CV

ROSS STORES, INC., ROSS DRESS FOR LESS, INC., AND STEVEN FUENTES,

Appellants

V.

FREDDIE PRICE, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-18-03907-B

ORDER

Before the Court is court reporter LaToya Young-Martinez’s request for a five-day 

extension of time to file the reporter’s record. We GRANT the request and ORDER the 

reporter's record be filed no later than January 13, 2020.

We note the record in this accelerated appeal was first due September 28, 2019, and we 

have already granted two extensions. Accordingly, we caution Ms. Young-Martinez that failure 

to file the record by January 13th may result in the Court taking any necessary steps to ensure the

filing of the record, including issuing an order that she not sit as a reporter until the record is 

filed. 
We DIRECT the Clerk of the Court to send a copy of this order to the Honorable 

Melissa Bellan, Presiding Judge of County Court at Law No. 2; Ms. Young-Martinez; and, the 

parties.

/s/ BILL WHITEHILL

JUSTICE
#### Jennie ALIOTO a/k/a Loretta Fisher, Plaintiff, v. John A. HOLTZMAN, Joseph E. O’Connell, Herbert A. Stein, David Nelson, Ogden Realty Company, a Wisconsin Corporation, and the Wisconsin Telephone Company, a Wisconsin corporation, Defendants.

No. 69-C-511.

United States District Court, E. D. Wisconsin.

Nov. 18, 1970.

*257Joseph P. Balistreri, Milwaukee, Wis., for plaintiff.

Neil R. Peterson, U. S. Dept, of Justice, Washington, . D.C., for Holtzman and O’Connell.

William J. Mulligan and Marvin A. Klitsner, Milwaukee, Wis., for Stein, Nelson and Wisconsin Telephone Co.

William L. Randall, Milwaukee, Wis., for Ogden Realty Co.

DECISION and ORDER

MYRON L. GORDON, District Judge.

Several of the defendants have moved the court for an order which would compel the plaintiff to answer certain discovery questions put to her at oral discovery proceedings. In comprehensive memoranda submitted to the court, the moving defendants have set forth many of the questions which were put to the plaintiff, together with her answers.

The plaintiff has asserted her belief that the defendants’ conduct provoked her indictment which, in turn, was a cause of her having .sustained humiliation and shame. The main thrust of the present motion is that in view of this position on the part of the plaintiff, these defendants should be free to conduct discovery upon all aspects of the indictment, including the right to interrogate Miss Alioto about conduct on her part which might possibly have played a role in the issuance of the criminal indictment.

I conclude that the defendants err in their belief that the plaintiff’s claim in this civil action grants them carte blanche to interrogate her about the criminal charge against her that was subsequently dismissed.

I believe that the plaintiff sufficiently responded to all fair discovery questions which were submitted to her, and that it would constitute improper harassment of the plaintiff to require her to undergo the additional, unjust discovery proposed in this motion. She is not obliged, in my opinion, to answer incriminating questions; the privilege against self-incrimination applies in civil cases as well as in criminal proceedings. McCarthy v. Arndstein, 266 U.S. 34, 40, 45 S.Ct. 16, 69 L.Ed. 158 (1924). To require the plaintiff to respond to questions concerning her indictment would “seriously compromise an important constitutional liberty”. Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 490, 71 S.Ct. 814, 819, 95 L.Ed. 1118 (1951). As in United States v. 47 Bottles, 26 F.R.D. 4 (D.C.1960), I am unable to spell out a waiver of the plaintiff’s fifth amendment rights by reason of her complaint that the defendants illegally engaged in an electronic surveillance.

I conclude that notwithstanding the broad scope of discovery permitted under Rule 26(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, these defendants are not entitled to an order which would compel answers by the plaintiff under Rules 37(a) (2) and (4).

Now, therefore, it is ordered that the defendants’ motion be and hereby is denied.
EXHIBIT 32.2


                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION


         In connection  with the  Quarterly  Report of Morgan Creek Energy Corp.
(the  "Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the quarter  ending  September  30, 2006 as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Report"), I, D. Bruce Horton, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,  certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350,  as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

     (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: November 10, 2006



                                        By: /s/ D. BRUCE HORTON
                                            _________________________________
                                                D. Bruce Horton
                                                Chief Financial Officer
Editorial Note on Part 1944
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1944 appear at 80 FR 9885, Feb. 24, 2015.

§ 1944.502 Policy. ( a ) The policy of the Rural Development is to provide Technical and Supervisory Assistance to eligible applicants to do the following: ( 1 ) Provide homeownership and financial counseling to reduce both the potential for delinquency by loan applicants and the level of payment delinquency by present Rural Development housing loan borrowers; and
( 2 ) Facilitate the delivery of housing programs to serve the most needy low-income families in rural areas of greatest need for housing.
( b ) Rural Development intends to fund projects which include counseling and delivery of housing programs.
( c ) State Directors are given a strong role in the selection of grantees so this program can complement Rural Development's policies of targeting Rural Development resources to areas of greatest need within their States.
( d ) Rural Development expects grant recipients to implement a TSA program and not to use TSA funds to prepare housing plans and strategies except as necessary to accomplish the specific objectives of the TSA project.
#### § 1724.40 General.

Borrowers shall have ongoing, integrated planning to determine their short-term and long-term needs for plant additions, improvements, replacements, and retirements for their electric systems. The primary components of the planning system consist of long-range engineering plans and construction work plans. Long-range engineering plans identify plant investments required over a long-range period, 10 years or more. Construction work plans specify and document plant requirements for a shorter term, 2 to 4 years. Long-range engineering plans and construction work plans shall be in accordance with part 1710, subpart F, of this chapter. See also RUS Bulletins 1724D-101A, Electric System Long-Range Planning Guide, and 1724D-101B, System Planning Guide, Construction Work Plans, for additional guidance. These bulletins are available at *https://www.rd.usda.gov/resources/regulations/bulletins.*

[63 FR 35314, June 29, 1998, as amended at 87 FR 73442, Nov. 30, 2022]
#### In the Matter of Harry Ruderman, an Attorney, Respondent. Co-ordinating Committee on Discipline of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, the New York County Lawyers’ Association and the Bronx County Bar Association, Petitioner.

First Department,

October 21, 1969.

*George R. Osborne (Arthur Winoker*with him on the brief), for petitioner.

*Louis Feren*for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

Bespondent was admitted to practice by the Second Judicial Department in December, 1933. This proceed*505ing brought by the Co-ordinating Committee on Discipline of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, the New York County Lawyers’ Association and the Bronx County Bar Association was referred to a Referee for the taking of testimony and the rendering of a report. The Referee has found the charges as alleged to be duly sustained with the exception of Charge No. 3 which was withdrawn and with the exception that he rejected certain allegations in Charge No. 1. The petitioner’s motion to confirm the Referee’s report is in all respects granted and the motion by respondent for an order disaffirming the report, insofar as the Referee sustains the charges and for a dismissal of the charges, is denied.

The charges, as sustained, and the evidence in support thereof, establish (Charge No. 1) that the respondent was guilty of improperly procuring referrals by lay persons to him of a small number of personal injury cases, the consideration paid to one of such persons being $5 to $15 a case, and the other person being extended small loans (totaling approximately $100) in consideration of the referrals; (Charge No. 2) that the respondent paid a sum of money ($135) to an insurance adjuster to influence him to settle a personal injury case; and (Charge No. 4) that respondent neglected the prosecution of a personal injury action whereby there was a default on a calendar call and a dismissal of an action one year later, although it appears that thereafter the respondent in behalf of his client moved to open the default and the case was settled.

Unquestionably, the charges as established represent professional misconduct of a nature indicating a serious disregard for the standards required for members of the Bar. Respondent’s derelictions may not be justified on the basis that small sums of money were involved. On due consideration, however, of the mitigating factors in this particular case, including the age of respondent, his long and otherwise unblemished record of membership in the Bar and the absence of a showing of serious loss by any client, we determine that the respondent should be suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year.

Stevens, P. J., Eager, Capozzoli, Tilzer and McGovern, JJ., concur.

Respondent suspended for a period of one year, effective November 21,1969.
Editorial Note on Part 1942
Editorial Notes: Nomenclature changes to part 1942 appear at 80 FR 9878, Feb. 24, 2015.

§ 1942.134 State supplements and guides. State Directors will obtain National Office clearance for all State supplements and guides under RD Instruction 2006-B (available in any Rural Development office). ( a ) *State supplements.* State Directors may supplement this subpart to meet State and local laws and regulations and to provide for orderly application processing and efficient service to applicants. State supplements shall not contain any requirements pertaining to bids, contract awards, and materials more restrictive than those in this subpart.
( b ) *State guides.* State Directors may develop guides for use by applicants if the guides to this subpart and subpart A of part 1942 are not adequate. State Directors may prepare guides for items needed for the application; items necessary for the docket; and items required prior to loan closing or construction starts.
[if !vml]>[endif]>
[if !vml]>[endif]>
You havereached the Federal Depository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC)Archive. This archive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC.Access to publications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of catalogingand locator services, including the Catalog of U.S. GovernmentPublications.  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the eventthat publications are no longer available from the original publishing agencysite. (Historical purposes)
**Title:****The incidenceand severity of sediment contamination in surface waters of the United States**** 
SuDocNumber: EP 1.2:SE 3/3/997
ItemNumber:0431-I-01(online)
CGPsystem Number:000591014
 
Vol.1
Vol.2
Vol.3
 **
§ 1714.4 Interest rates. ( a ) *Municipal rate loans.* Each advance of funds on a municipal rate loan shall bear interest at a single rate for each interest rate term. All interest rates applicable to municipal rate loans will be increased by one eighth of one percent (0.125 percent), if the borrower elects to include in the loan agreement a prepayment option (call provision), allowing the borrower to prepay all or a portion of an advance on a date other than a rollover maturity date. However, no interest rate for any advances of a loan to a borrower who qualifies for the interest rate cap may exceed 7 percent.
( b ) *Hardship rate loans.* All advances of funds on hardship rate loans shall bear interest at a rate of 5 percent.
( c ) *Application procedure.* The borrower must indicate whether the application is for a municipal rate loan, with or without the interest rate cap, or a hardship rate loan. If the application is for a municipal rate loan, the borrower must also indicate whether they intend to elect the prepayment option.
[58 FR 66260, Dec. 20, 1993, as amended at 67 FR 16969, Apr. 9, 2002; 84 FR 32615, July 9, 2019]
#### § 1753.95 Advance of loan funds.

Advance of loan funds needed to meet the certification borrower's current financial obligations are to be requested on RUS Form 481 for construction and engineering items supported by appropriate RUS Forms 158 and 159. For items other than construction or engineering, other supporting data shall be submitted. (See 7 CFR part 1744 subpart C.)
Editorial Note on Part 1948
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1948 appear at 80 FR 9888, Feb. 24, 2015.

§ 1948.86 Site development and acquisition grant selection criteria. The following criteria will be considered in the selection of site development and/or acquisition grant recipients: ( a ) *Required criteria.* Each project must meet the following criteria: ( 1 ) The area is covered by a Rural Development approved plan;
( 2 ) The Rural Development approved plan specifically calls for the site development and/or acquisition;
( 3 ) Other Federal funds that the community could receive for the project are inadequate or not available, and no State or local funds for site development are available to permit development on a timely basis;
( 4 ) The site is to be developed and/or acquired and is to be used for housing, public facilities, or services;
( 5 ) The applicant has title to the site, lease on site, or an option on the site and funds to purchase the site, or is applying for site acquisition funds;
( 6 ) The site will comply with Executive Orders 11988, “Flood Plain Management” and 11990, “Protection of Wetlands;”
( 7 ) An appraisal of the fair market value of the site must have been completed;
( 8 ) Priority has been given in the selection of site to unoccupied or previously mined land;
( 9 ) Class I or Class II farm land was included in the site only if other suitable land was not available;
( 10 ) The land is stable if previously mined; and
( 11 ) Assurance that the requirements set forth in title 7, subtitle A, part 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970) have been met.
( b ) *Competitive criteria.* The following criteria will be considered in the selection of grantees: ( 1 ) Priority assigned and recommended funding level by the Governor in the State Investment Strategy for Energy Impacted Areas;
( 2 ) The increase in the number of new employees and the percentage of increase in employment in coal and/or uranium development activities in the year of designation within the approved designated area (years projected will be averaged and treated equally);
( 3 ) The severity of need for housing, public facilities, services that has resulted from coal or uranium development activities in relation to available financial resources within the approved designated area covered by the plan calling for the project;
( 4 ) Local priority for the project;
( 5 ) The amount of effort by State and local government to meet the needs of the area covered by the application as called for in the State Investment Strategy for Energy Impacted Areas in relation to available financial resources;
( 6 ) An assessment of the environmental impacts of the project; and
( 7 ) The nature of comments and recommendations of A-95 clearing- house(s).
Exhibit
32.2





Certification of Principal
Financial Officer


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 SRKP 2, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Anthony C. Pintsopoulos, 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.





/s/ Anthony C.
  PintsopoulosAnthony
      C. Pintsopoulos
                Principal
      Financial Officer
                April
      6, 2009
March 22, 2013 

Esta Rosenberg, Chief 

U.S. Air Carrier Division 

Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

 Re: OST-2013-0051 

Dear Ms. Rosenberg: 

 JetBlue has completed its polling of carriers served with JetBlue’s application for a 

Statement of Authorization that would permit JetBlue to display Qatar Airways’ designator code 

on JetBlue’s flights between points in the United States. We have received a “no objection” from 

all carriers. 

Sincerely yours, 

 Jonathan B. Hill 

 Counsel for JetBlue Airways Corporation 

cc: Service List
#### § 1489.25 Submissions.

For all permissible methods of delivery, submissions required by this part shall be deemed submitted as of the date received by the CCC.