alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 

No. 01-15-00670-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS

The Estate of Donald H. Williams, Deceased

On Appeal from the Probate Court No. 3

Harris County, Texas

Tr. Ct. No. 427,929

SUPPLEMENTAL CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE REGARDING 

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 

TO FILE APPELLANT’S BRIEF

TO THE FIRST COURT OF APPEALS:

This is to certify that the undersigned has conferred with opposing counsel 

regarding the motion for extension of time to file appellant’s brief. Opposing 

counsel has stated that he is not opposed to the motion.

 Respectfully submitted,

 /s/Timothy A. Hootman 

 Timothy A. Hootman 

 SBN 09965450 

2402 Pease St

Houston, TX 77003

713.247.9548; 713.583.9523 (f)

Email: thootman2000@yahoo.com 

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT, TRACY L.

DAMPIER

ACCEPTED

01-15-00670-CV

FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

10/22/2015 3:06:42 PM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK

 FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 10/22/2015 3:06:42 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that, in accordance with Rule 9.5 of the Texas Rules of 

Appellate Procedure, I have served the forgoing document upon the following 

attorneys by electronic service:

Charlie Henke

HENKE LAW FIRM, LLP

3200 Southwest Frwy, 34th Fl.

Houston, TX 77027

chenke@henkelawfirm.com

Dated: October 22, 2015.

/s/Timothy A. Hootman_____

Timothy A. Hootman
628 S.E.2d 884

#### In the Matter of Jack L. SCHOER, Respondent.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

March 22, 2006.

ORDER

The Office of Disciplinary Counsel petitions the Court to place respondent on interim suspension pursuant to Rule 17(b) and (c), RLDE, of Rule 413, SCACR. The petition is granted. Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law in this State until further order of the Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/Jean H. Toal C.J.

FOR THE COURT
<PAGE>


                                                                   Exhibit 10.99


[GMAC COMMERCIAL CREDIT LLC LOGO]



September 10, 2002


Bernard Chaus, Inc.
530 Seventh Avenue
New York, New York 10018
Attn: Josephine Chaus, Chairwoman of the Board


Bernard Chaus, Inc.
800 Secaucus Road
Secaucus, New Jersey 07094
Attn: Bart Heminover, Chief Financial Officer


Re: The Second Restated and Amended Financing Agreement between us dated as of
October 10, 1997, as supplemented and amended (the "Financing Agreement")


Ladies/Gentlemen:

You have advised us that you have made arrangements with The CIT Group/
Commercial Services, Inc. ("CIT") to promptly provide financing for your company
(the "CIT Financing"), in replacement of our Financing Agreement. You have also
indicated that concurrently with such CIT Financing being put into place, which
you contemplate will occur by no later than the end of this month, you shall
terminate our Financing Agreement and that all Obligations thereunder together
with all related Obligations, including without limitation all Revolving
Advances and our Term Loan, will be paid to us and satisfied in full.

This letter serves to confirm that so long as the CIT Financing is completed by
October 25, 2002, pursuant to mutually acceptable documentation to be entered
into for this purpose, and all of the above described Obligations are paid to us
in full by CIT by said date, then the $2,200,000 early termination fee referred
to in Section 7.3 (b) of the Financing Agreement shall be waived by us and need
not be paid to us in accordance with that subsection.

     Except to the extent set forth above, no changes to the Financing Agreement
are intended or implied. We trust that this clarifies the matters set forth
above in relation to the contemplated CIT financing.


                                                Very truly yours,
                                                GMAC COMMERCIAL CREDIT LLC

                                                By: /s/ John Hendrickson
                                                   ----------------------------
                                                   Name:  John Hendrickson
                                                   Title: SUP





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1290 Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York 10104
212-884-7000
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                    AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and in
connection with the annual report on Form 10-K of Metal Management, Inc. (the
"Corporation") for the period ended March 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, the
Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation, certifies
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
Corporation.

/s/ Daniel W. Dienst
---------------------------
Daniel W. Dienst
Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
June 11, 2004

         A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to the Corporation and will be retained by the Corporation and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
§ 3203.9 Accountability and recordkeeping. ( a ) USDA requires all excess computers or other technical equipment received by an eligible recipient pursuant to this part be placed into use within one year of receipt of the property and used for at least one year thereafter. The recipient's PMO must maintain accountable records for such property during this time period.
( b ) GSA requires that all excess personal property given to non-federal recipients be reported each fiscal year. USDA agencies that transfer property under this part must report the transfers in their annual reports to OPPM and include both the recipient and organization names. OPPM will review the reports for accuracy, as well as fair and equitable distribution of the excess computers or other technical equipment, before submitting to GSA.
## CITY OF HOUSTQN

_ _______ An

_ n

_

is

_ e

_ D

_ . P

_a

_

rk

_

e

_ r _ Office of the Mayor May 6 , 2015 The Honorable Anthony R. Foxx Secretary of Transportation US Department of Tran sportation 1200 New Jersey Ave SE Washington, DC 20590 The Honorable John F. Kerry Secretary of State US Department of State 2201 C Street NW Washington , DC 20520 Dear Secretaries Foxx and Kerry: Mayor P .O. Box 1562 Houston, Texas 77251-1562 Te l ephone - Dial 311 www.houstontx.gov

As the home to one of the country 's ten bu s iest airports, the C ity of Houston holds significant interest in ensuring that U.S. airl in es- indeed, all air carriers- are provided a fair and level playing field to compete for routes. 

### It creates healthy competition in the marketplace , producing more choices and lower fares for pas se nger s. However, it has been brought to my attention that a small group of state -owned airlines in the Arabian Gulf are alle ge d to be receiving substantial subsidie s from their governments and are therefore vio lating th e longtime Open Skies policy des igned to foster healthy competition. I respectfull y request the federal government investigate these allegations , and, if proven to be true, take appropriate action by opening a dialogue with the governments of Qatar and the United Arab Emirates to address such subsidies . Regards , Annise D. Parker Mayor



# s 10-150511-013

### CITY OF HOUSTON OHiceoftheMoyor P.O. Box 1562



### 510-150511-013 Ho uslon . Texas 772 5 1 - 1562

The Honorable Anthony R. Fo xx Secretary of Transportation US Department of Transportat i on 1200 New Jersey Ave SE Washington , DC 20590 U. S. POSTAGE» PITNEY BOWES**~-'**

### ~- 

# -- ZIP 77002 

## $000 48° 02 1n • 0001398585MAY 07 2015
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted
from SEC Form 10-K and is qualified in its entirety by reference
to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                       3,266,338
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,335,645
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    166,955
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,836,459
<PP&E>                                      12,267,379
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,194,164
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              16,878,182
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,100,626
<BONDS>                                      1,008,135
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    16,504,118
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,734,697)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                16,878,182
<SALES>                                      7,781,962
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             8,010,817
<CGS>                                        2,645,730
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,059,530
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                26,995
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              51,967
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,872,325
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,100,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,772,325
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,772,325
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .15
        

</TABLE>
#### § 301.87-9 Costs and charges.

The services of the inspector shall be furnished without cost. The U.S. Department of Agriculture will not be responsible for any costs or charges incident to inspections or compliance with the provisions of the quarantine and regulations in this subpart, other than for the services of the inspector.
<PAGE>
                                                            Exhibit 10.22.3

[Letterhead]
NRG Generating (U.S.) Inc.
1221 Nicollet Mall
Suite 700
Minneapolis, MN 55403-2445
Telephone (612) 373-5305
Fax (612) 373-8833


May 20, 1996

Mr. Harvey A. Braswell
Stewart & Stevenson Operations, Inc.
2707 North Lake West, 2nd Floor
Houston, TX 77008

Re: Auxiliary Boilers - NRG Generating (Parlin) Inc.

Please refer to that certain NRG Generating (Parlin) Inc./Stewart &
Stevenson Operations, Inc. Operating and Maintenance Agreement, dated May
1, 1996 (the "Parlin O&M Agreement") between NRG Generating (Parlin) Inc.
("NRG Parlin") and Stewart & Stevenson Operations Inc. ("SSOI").

This letter is to confirm the mutual understanding and agreement of NRG
Parlin and SSOI that the term "System" as used in the Parlin O&M Agreement
includes any auxiliary boiler (and any replacement boiler) used to meet NRG
Parlin's obligations under the Amended and Restated Power Purchase
Agreement, under the Steam Purchase Contract dated December 8, 1986, as
amended, between NRG Parlin and E.I. duPont de Nemours and Company
("DuPont") and under the Electricity Purchase Contract dated January 18,
1988 between NRG Parlin and DuPont, regardless of whether such boiler is
regarded as owned by NRG Parlin.  It is also our mutual understanding and
agreement that SSOI will operate and maintain the Parlin auxiliary boiler
under the terms of the Parlin O&M Agreement.

This letter is intended as a clarifying amendment to the NRG Parlin
Agreement.  Accordingly, the NRG Parlin Agreement is hereby amended to
reflect the terms hereof and, except as explicitly stated above, shall
continue in full force and affect in accordance with its provisions.
Additionally, the provisions of Article XIX of the NRG Parlin Agreement are
hereby incorporated into this letter as if they were separately stated
herein.

If this letter accurately sets forth the terms of our understanding, please
so indicate by executing a coy of this letter in the space provided below.

                              Yours very truly,

                              NRG GENERATING (PARLIN) COGENERATION

                              By: /s/ Leonard Bluhm
                              Name:   Leonard A. Bluhm
                              Title:  President

<PAGE>


ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED TO:

STEWART & STEVENSON OPERATIONS, INC.

By: /s/ Harvey A. Braswell
Name:   Harvey A. Braswell
Title:  Vice President - North American Operations
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 4:02-CR-045-SPM

THYRON RICHARDSON,

Defendant.

_________________________________/

ORDER OF REFERRAL FOR PLEA PROCEEDINGS

The Court has been informed that the Defendant in the above-styled case

wishes to enter a guilty plea and consents to having the guilty plea proceedings

conducted by a United States Magistrate Judge. Pursuant to the provisions of 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(3) and N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 72.3, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the above-captioned criminal case be

referred to the Honorable William C. Sherrill, United States Magistrate Judge, to

conduct all of the proceedings required by Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of

Criminal Procedure incident to a guilty plea and to make a recommendation to

the District Judge concerning acceptance or rejection of the guilty plea.

DONE AND ORDERED this sixth day of August, 2008.

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

United States District Judge
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan



### July 30, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice


### 133902 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan 

### PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices



### v SC: 133902 COA: 267043 Wayne CC: 05-007110-01 NIGEL LEE WHITTAKER, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 27, 2007 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.

p0723 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

July 30, 2007

Clerk
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 16, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-51420

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RODRIGO FLORES-LUEVANO,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:05-CR-335-ALL

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

Before REAVLEY, WIENER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Rodrigo Flores-Luevano (Flores) appeals the 41-month

sentence imposed following his plea of guilty to illegally

reentering the United States after deportation. Flores argues

that his sentence is unreasonable and greater than necessary to

meet the sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). He does not

challenge the calculation of his guidelines sentencing range. 

A sentence, such as Flores’s, “within a properly

calculated Guideline range is presumptively reasonable.” 

United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir. 2006). 
No. 05-51420

-2-

We note that, at sentencing, the district court specifically

referenced the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, which sets out the

sentencing goals found in § 3553(a). The district court’s

written statement of reasons also stated that the district court

had considered the factors found in § 3553(a). We conclude that

Flores has failed to demonstrate that his properly calculated

guidelines sentence was unreasonable. See Alonzo, 435 F.3d at

554; United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 519 (5th Cir.),

cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 43 (2005).

Flores also challenges 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)’s treatment of

prior felony and aggravated felony convictions as sentencing

factors rather than elements of the offense in light of Apprendi

v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). Flores’s constitutional

challenge is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States,

523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). Although Flores contends that

Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided and that a majority of

the Supreme Court would overrule Almendarez-Torres in light of

Apprendi, we have repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis

that Almendarez-Torres remains binding. See United States v.

Garza-Lopez, 410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S.

Ct. 298 (2005). Flores properly concedes that his argument is

foreclosed in light of Almendarez-Torres and circuit precedent,

but he raises it here to preserve it for further review.

AFFIRMED.
October 26, 2015

Dear Mr. Pope:

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA-2015-1903). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your petition.

 Describe the aircraft make(s), model(s), a nd type(s)(i.e. - fixed-wing, rotorcraft, lighterthan-air) for the proposed UAS operation. The description(s) should include the maximum weight (including payload). This information can be located in the aircraft manual(s).

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov. Once your information has been submitted, please also send a copy of the requested information (and any proprietary information), as well as your comment tracking number from regulations.gov via e-mail to 333exemptions@faa.gov. If you want us to process your request any further, we must receive the information described above by 11/9/15. If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-2999.

Sincerely,

/S/

Brenda Robeson Program Analyst

### How to post additional information/documents to your docket

1. Visit www.regulations.gov

. Type in your docket number in the search field.

2. Click “Comment Now

. ”

3. Enter the requested information, or upload a document. Review your entry, and click “Submit Comment.” Save

your comment tracking number. Submissions to the docket are manually processed, and may take 4

- 6 weeks to

be uploaded to your docket.
#### § 29.9203 Certification.

The documentation of class or type, weight, or other tobacco characteristics as required in § 29.9263.
From: Jack Kennedy

Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 11:37 AM To: Richard Hardegger Cc: Lori L. Stegink Subject: FW: Scrubber Cost Estimate Rich: Per our discussion this morning; here's the info I got on 90% SO2 control scrubbers for the taconite BART Study. Bottom line is that 90% is achievable in one scrubber, but it will need to be larger than standard venturi rod scrubber to get the contact time needed for 90% control. I'll add and adjustment to our pelletizer scrubber costs in the BACT report. Jack

___________________________________________ From: Jack Kennedy Sent: Monday, July 10, 2006 11:21 AM To: Tony Shoberg; Teresa L. Kinder Cc: Erik Boleman; Beth Havlik Subject: Scrubber Cost Estimate
I talked to Hal Taylor, STS Consultants, and John Chitjian, Jardar Systems, regarding 90% SO2 control from taconite furnaces. Both worked on the scrubber replacements at Minntac and Keetac. To achieve 90% control, assume a second scrubber is needed with an equipment cost of $3.7M per scrubber, including ancillary equipment. This cost is for a system rated at 500,000 acfm. It is based on the scrubbers (2) installed at Keetac. Use the 0.6 exponent factor to adjust for other sizes. My notesshow Keetac at 850,000 acfm vs. scrubber design of 1,000,000 acfm. So, we should probably include

15% extra flow capacity for the other facilities when calculating the cost. Additional notes: 1) Existing scrubbers do not have sufficient residence time, water flows and reagent concentrations needed to achieve 90% control. Hal thought 90% could be achieved with system upgrades. John was less optimistic about achieving 90%; so, we should add some caveats on setting permit limits as 90% control efficiency 2) Per Hal at STS, it would be possible to achieve 90% control if an additional contact chamber is added. This could be done by enlarging the existing scrubber or adding a second scrubber. Hal suggested a horizontal spray scrubber with mist eliminators downstream of the existing venturi rod scrubbers. A liquid/gas ratio of 40/1 is needed; so larger pumps and piping would be required. In addition, the lime concentration in the scrubbing water needs to be increased. So, the lime slurry systems would need to be upgraded. Hal suggested that the scrubber cost would represent 25% of the total cost needed for the upgrade. The scrubber tower for a lime scrubbing system located at a green field site is 15% of total equipment cost. Hal estimated the equipment cost of a second scrubber to be $800K - $900K. Use of the 0.6 exponent factor to estimate the cost of scrubbers rates at other flow rate would be an acceptable way to estimate costs for the other taconite furnaces. 3) A second scrubber with mist eliminators would add 5' - 6' of pressure drop; so a blower upgrade would be needed. The Keetac blowers were $290 each. 4) Total equipment cost based on information above is: $3.7MM = $850K/0.25 + $300K (for blower) Jack Kennedy Barr Engineering Co. Phone 952-832-2913 Cell 612-310-5072 Email jkennedy@barr.com
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

INFANT FORMULA et. al.
VS CASE NO, 4:91-CV-878 MMP

ABBOTT LABORATORIES

FINANCIAL REFERRAL AND ORDER

Transfer of registry funds to unclaimed funds

Explanation: This case has $145,164.36 including interest in the Court Registry Investment System
(CRIS). The Guide to Judiciary Policies and Procedures directs that any unclaimed fund balance held in
the registry after the conclusion of a case for a period longer than the statutorily required period should
be transferred to the unclaimed funds account. The statutory period for the above funds is five years.
This case meets those requirements. I am requesting authorization to transfer these funds plus any
additional accrued interest from CRIS to the unclaimed funds account held by the US Treasury.

Fund that are held in the unclaimed funds account can be disbursed by an order of the court.

JESSICA J. LYUBLANOVITS, Clerk of Court

Prepared by: __s/Philip Detweiler

Philip Detweiler, Financial Specialist Date: February 10, 2011
Referred by: B fer Facto) Deputy Clerk
ORDER OF COURT

It is ORDERED this_11" day of _February, 2011, that the Clerk
X_ Transfer the identified funds to the unclaimed fund account.
Continue to hold in CRIS.

Other direction from the Court.

SV pcesta 09 (Bue

“MAURICE M. PAUL, SENIOR
UNETED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

RecdQeL it 1UsDeFinienQ2et

Adopted: 12/03/99