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

NO. 14-15-00439-CV

IN THE FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS 

HOUSTON, TEXAS 

DENBURY ONSHORE, LLC, 

Appellant, 

V.

TEXCAL ENERGY SOUTH TEXAS, L.P., AND VENOCO, INC., 

Appellees. 

On Appeal from the 334th Judicial District Court, Harris County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 2014-17506 

STATEMENT REGARDING MEDIATION 

Appellant Denbury Onshore, LLC (“Denbury”) hereby notifies the Court 

that the parties participated in mediation as required by the Court’s June 11, 2015 

Abatement Order and that the parties were unable to resolve this dispute. Denbury 

asks the Court to reinstate the appeal and issue a briefing schedule so that the 

appeal may proceed. 

 

ACCEPTED

14-15-00439-cv

FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

8/4/2015 12:02:04 PM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK

 FILED IN 14th COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 8/4/2015 12:02:04 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
2

Respectfully submitted,

Of Counsel:

Lionel M. Schooler

TBN 17803300

Jackson Walker L.L.P.

1401 McKinney, Suite 1900

Houston, TX 77010

(713) 752-4200 office

(713) 502-0381 fax

lschooler@jw.com

/s/ J. Albert Kroemer

J. Albert Kroemer

TBN 11728400

Cantey Hanger LLP

1999 Bryan Street, Suite 3300

Dallas, TX 75201

(214) 978-4167 office

(214) 978-4150 fax

akroemer@canteyhanger.com 

Stephen L. Tatum

TBN 19674500

T. Derek Carson 

TBN 24085240

Cantey Hanger LLP

600 West 6th Street, Suite 300

Fort Worth, TX 76102

(817) 877-2800 office

(817) 877-2807 fax

statum@canteyhanger.com

dcarson@canteyhanger.com 

COUNSEL FOR DENBURY 

ONSHORE, LLC
3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that the foregoing document was served via the Court’s 

electronic-filing system and/or electronic mail on the following counsel of record 

on this 4th day of August, 2015.

Barrett H. Reasoner

Aundrea K. Gulley

Ayesha Najam

J. Benjamin Bireley

Gibbs & Bruns LLP

1100 Louisiana, Suite 5300

Houston, TX 77002

breasoner@gibbsbruns.com

agulley@gibbsbruns.com

anajam@gibbsbruns.com

bbireley@gibbsbruns.com

/s/ J. Albert Kroemer

J. Albert Kroemer
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, Brian E. Schaaf, certify that:

 

1.                                     I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Ford Credit Auto Lease Trust 2015-B (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);

 

2.                                     Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.                                     Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

 

4.                                     I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicer and based on my knowledge and the compliance review conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects; and

 

5.                                     All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report.  Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

 

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: The Bank of New York Mellon, as indenture trustee of the issuing entity, and U.S. Bank Trust National Association, as owner trustee of the issuing entity.

 

Dated March 23, 2016

 

 
|   | /s/ Brian E. Schaaf                                |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------|
|   | Brian E. Schaaf                                    |
|   | Vice President and   Assistant Treasurer           |
|   | Ford Motor Credit   Company LLC, as Servicer       |
|   | (senior officer in   charge of servicing function) |

 

----
39712.

#### LAW v. THE STATE.

Decided October 24, 1962.

Franicum, Judge.

The defendant’s guilt of larceny of an automobile being wholly dependent upon the inference arising from the possession of a part of the stolen automobile after the theft, and this possession being shown by uncontradicted and unimpeached testimony to be consistent with his innocence, the verdict was contrary to the evidence, and a new trial should have been granted. *King v. State,*99 Ga. 686 (26 SE 480, 59 ASR 251); *Williams v. State,*125 Ga. 268 (54 SE 166); *Hampton v. State,*6 Ga. App. 778 (65 SE 816); *Gibbs v. State,*8 Ga. App. 107 (68 SE 742); *Brooks v. State,*21 Ga. App. 661 (94 SE 810); *Slaughter v. State,*24 Ga. App. 428 (100 SE 774); *Denson v. State,*26 Ga. App. 427 (106 SE 732); *Willis v. State,*33 Ga. App. 352 (126 SE 303).

*Judgment reversed.*

*Nichols, P. J., and Jordan, J., concur.*

*783
      *George G. Finch,*for plaintiff in error.

*Paul Webb, Solicitor General, Eugene L. Tiller,*contra.
Ms. Donna Diano

Air Adventures Hawaii, LLC P.O. Box 3350 Li hue, HI96766 Dear Ms. Diano : This letter is to inform y ou that we are unable to process y our request for an exemption from part 120 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). I t expla ins why we can’t process yo ur request and what y ou should do in the next 30 day s. **Why We Can’t Process Your Request** We entered y our August 1, 2011 , exemption request on behalf of Air Adventures Hawaii, LLC into the public docket (No. FAA
- 20 11
- 0833 ), but w e are unable to process y our request any further. The information y ou sent doesn’t comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, y ou must send us all of the following:

 The specific section or s ections of 14 CFR from which y ou seek relief, the extent of the relief y ou seek, and the reason y ou seek relief.

 The reasons why

granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why

th e exemption wouldn’t adversely affect safety

or how the exemption would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which y ou seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your reque st. **What You Should Do** If y ou want us to process y our request any further, y ou must send the information described earlier to reach us within 30 day s. We will consider the docket on y our request open until we receive this required information from you. Please note that 14 CFR 11.63(d) requires y ou to send y our petition for exemption at least 120 day s before the proposed effective date of the exemption.2

**If We Don’t Hear From You** If we don’t hear from y ou within 30 day s, we will close the docket without n otifying y ou further. If y ou have any

questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267
- 9677. Sincerely ,
Id a M. Klepper Manager, Airmen and Airspace Rules Division
Enclosure3

Project No.: A AM
- 11
- 410
- E Project Officer: _____________

__ ARM
- 10 1 : KJone s: 08/04/11 :Doc# 32881 ARM
- 1/100/10 1 :Program Office AAM
- 800 Statistics: Reject Letter.doc, 380 words Original, 04 Aug 2011 14:24 Style Index 23 **Excellent** for a Legal Document Average Sentence Length 18 **Excellent** Passive I ndex 0 **Excellent MS**  **DONNA DIANO**  **AIR ADVENTURES**  **HAWAII LLC**  **PO BOX**  **3350 LIHUE**  **HI 96766**
IV

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 81

Expressing the policy of the United States with respect to the normalization

of relations with the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 30, 1995

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas (for himself, Mr. HUNTER, Mr. DORNAN, Mr.

CUNNINGHAM, Mr. ROHRABACHER, and Mr. SOLOMON) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on

International Relations

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the policy of the United States with respect to

the normalization of relations with the Socialist Republic

of Vietnam.

Whereas the Government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam

has the ability to resolve the fate of the vast majority of

unaccounted for American prisoners of war and missing

in action (POW/MIA) of the Vietnam era, yet has failed

to do so; and

Whereas the Government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam

has failed to grant the United States Government unrestricted access to archival information in connection with

unaccounted for Vietnam era American POW/MIAs:

Now, therefore, be it
2

•HCON 81 IH

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That the United States should not normalize

3 relations with, or extend or provide any trade or develop4 ment assistance to, the Government of the Socialist Re5 public of Vietnam until the issue of unaccounted for Viet6 nam era POW/MIAs is resolved and the President deter7 mines and certifies to the Congress that the following con8 ditions have been met:

9 (1) The United States Government is allowed

10 unrestricted access to the written, photo, and film

11 archives of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, includ12 ing all Politburo, Central Committee, and military

13 records in Vietnam and areas under Vietnamese

14 communist control.

15 (2) The United States Government is allowed

16 unrestricted access to any and all areas of the So17 cialist Republic of Vietnam to search for evidence of

18 the fate of American POW/MIAs.

19 (3) The Socialist Republic of Vietnam has initi20 ated the immediate return of all readily available re21 mains of Vietnam-era American POW/MIAs.

22 (4) Representatives of the United States Gov23 ernment have and will protect the confidentiality of
3

•HCON 81 IH

1 all witnesses with information regarding the fate of

2 American POW/MIAs.

Æ
#### § 3.8 Certain corporate reorganizations and changes in partnerships, and certain transfers on death. [Reserved]
SUMMARY MEMORANDUM OPINION; NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLIC ATION IN THE
OFFICIAL REPORTERS

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

LARRY HODGE
,

Plaintiff

,

v.

THE INVISIBLE EMPIRE , et al.,

Defendant s

. Civil Action No. 12

- cv

- 1412 (RLW)

MEMORANDUM OPINION 1

After dismissing Plaintiff Larry Hodge’s amended complaint for failing to satisfy F ED

. R.

C IV

. P. 8(a) (Dkt. No s . 10 & 11) , Mr. Hodge now moves this Court pursuant to F ED

. R. C IV

. P.

60(b) to reconsider. (Dkt. No. 12). Rule 60(b) (1) provides grounds for relief to a party that

identifies “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.” Mr. Hodge had two

opportunities to ensure his complaint met the minimal pleading requireme nts of Ru le 8(a), and

failed to do so. Mr. Hodge now claims he has not been able to provide all documents in support

of his claim “due to the press of other matters and personal obligations.” (Dkt. No. 12 , at ¶ 3 ).

But “ [a] defeated litigant cannot set aside a judgment . . . because he failed to present

. . . all of

the facts known to him that might have been useful to the court.” Richardson v. National Rifle

Ass’n , 879 F. Supp. 1, 2 (D.D.C. 1995) (quoting 11 Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Mil ler,

1 This unpublished memorandum opinion is intended solely to inform the parties and any reviewing court of the basis for the instant ruling, or alternatively, to assist in any potential future analysis of the res judicata , law of the case, or preclusive effec t of the ruling. The Court has designated this opinion as “not intended for publication,” but this Court cannot prevent or prohibit the publication of this opinion in the various and sundry electronic and legal databases (as it is a public document), and this Court cannot prevent or prohibit the citation of this opinion by counsel. Cf. Fed. R. App. P. 32.1. Nonetheless, as stated in the operational handbook adopted by our Court of Appeals, “counsel are reminded that the Court’s decision to issue an unpub lished disposition means that the Court sees no precedential value in that disposition.” D.C. Circuit Handbook of Practice and Internal Procedures 43 (2011).SUMMARY MEMORANDUM OPINION; NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLIC ATION IN THE
OFFICIAL REPORTERS

2 F EDERAL P RACTICE AND P ROCEDURE § 2858 ). Additionally, Mr. Hodge has still not provided

any relevant evidence to establish the nature or basis of his initial claim. See Murray v. District

of Columbia , 52 F.3d 353, 355 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (to obtain Rule 60(b) relief, “the movant must

provide the district court with reason to believe that vacating the judgment will not be an empty

exercise or a futile gesture”).

Accordingly, Mr. Hodge’s motion to reconsider will be DENIED

. A separate Order

accompanies th is Memorandum Opinion.

SO ORDERED.

Date: January 11 , 201 3

ROBERT L. WILKINS
Unite d State s Distric t Judge
**Exhibit 32**     Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of PotashCorporation of Saskatchewan Inc. (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge,that:     Amendment No. 1 to the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2005 (the “Form 10-Q/A”), ofthe Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 10-Q/A fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.Dated:November 18, 2005      /s/WILLIAM J. DOYLE  William J. Doyle
MeadWestvaco Corporation Compensation Program for Non-Employee Directors



 Exhibit 10.35 
 MeadWestvaco Corporation 
 Compensation Program for Non-Employee Directors 
 Effective January 23, 2007, the compensation program for non-employee directors of MeadWestvaco Corporation has been modified and the form and amount of compensation
consist of the following components: 
  

	 	(1)	Following the annual meeting of shareholders, all non-employee directors are awarded MeadWestvaco stock units valued at $80,000 which track the performance of MeadWestvaco common
stock. The stock units are distributed to directors on termination of Board membership in shares of MeadWestvaco common stock. 

  

	 	(2)	Following the annual meeting of shareholders, all non-employee directors receive an annual cash retainer of $55,000. In addition, non-employee directors also receive an annual cash
retainer based on their service on Board Committees as follows: 

  

	 	a.	Members of the Audit Committee (other than the Chair) receive an annual cash retainer of $10,000. 

  

	 	b.	The Chair of the Audit Committee receives an annual cash retainer of $20,000. 

  

	 	c.	The Chair of the Compensation and Organization Development Committee receives an annual cash retainer of $15,000. 

  

	 	d.	The Chair of each other standing Committee of the Board of Directors receives an annual cash retainer of $10,000. 

 Annual cash retainers are payable in a lump sum. Non-employee directors may elect to defer all or a portion of their annual cash retainer.
##### 



2006
    
    
    2005A
    
    
    Net income as reported, Canadian GAAP ($ millions)
    
    $
    445.8
    
    
    $
    425.8B
    
    
    Items adjusting net income ($ millions)
    
    $
    7.7
    
    
    $
    (9.3
    )C
    
    
    Net income, US GAAP ($ millions)
    
    $
    453.5
    
    
    $
    416.5D
    
    
    Weighted average number of shares outstanding
    
    
    103,781,000
    
    
    
    109,623,000E
    
    
    Net
additional shares issuable for diluted earnings per share calculation
    
    
    2,153,000
    
    
    
    2,837,000CANADIAN GAAPBasic earnings per share (A/D)
    
    $
    4.30
    
    
    $
    3.88Diluted earnings per share (A/(D+E))
    
    $
    4.21
    
    
    $
    3.79UNITED STATES GAAPBasic earnings per share (C/D)
    
    $
    4.37
    
    
    $
    3.80Diluted earnings per share (C/(D+E))
    
    $
    4.28
    
    
    $
    3.70
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



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Covalent Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Kenneth M. Borow, M.D., President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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/ Kenneth M. Borow, M.D.           
|Kenneth M. Borow, M.D.               
|President and Chief Executive Officer



November 15, 2004



The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes
 Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
Exhibit 10.42


Vertex Employee
Compensation Plan


On an annual basis in the first quarter of the fiscal
year the Management Development and Compensation Committee of our Board of
Directors adopts an employee compensation plan for our officers and other employees,
including our named executive officers together with performance goals for that
fiscal year. The plan addresses three components of employee compensation—base
salary, performance bonus which serve as short-term incentives and equity
grants which serve as long-term incentive—that are designed to motivate, reward
and retain employees by aligning compensation with the achievement of strategic
corporate goals as well as individual performance objectives.


Upon completion of each performance period (usually a
calendar year), our Board of Directors assigns us a performance rating on the
basis of achievement of goals for the company set by the Board early in the
performance period. The amount available for payment of performance bonuses is
established on the basis of this performance rating, and is allocated to
employees on the basis of salary tier and individual performance rating. The
base salary of the executive officers are set based on market and other
competitive factors. Merit increases to base salaries for other employees are
made on the basis of individual performance rating. Annual equity grants, made
in the form of stock options, restricted stock grants, or a combination of both
are made on the basis of salary tier and individual performance.


The Management Development and Compensation Committee
retains broad discretion to determine the appropriate form and level of
compensation, particularly for our executives, on the basis of its assessment
of our executives, the demand for talent, our performance and other factors.
Key corporate performance factors generally include, among other things,
achievement of specific financial objectives, research productivity,
development progression with respect to both internal development efforts and
collaborative development, and other aspects of our performance. We reserve the
right to modify the plan, and the key corporate performance factors and
criteria under the plan, at any time.
III

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 216

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

SEPTEMBER 27, 1996

Received

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Providing for relocation of the Portrait Monument.

Whereas in 1995, women of America celebrated the 75th anniversary of their right to participate in our government

through suffrage;

Whereas Lucretia Mott, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Susan

B. Anthony were pioneers in the movement for women’s

suffrage and the pursuit of equal rights; and

Whereas the relocation of the Portrait Monument to a place

of prominence and esteem would serve to honor and re-
2

HCON 216 RDS

vere the contribution of thousands of women; Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That the Architect of the Capitol shall—

(1) restore the Portrait Monument and place it in

the Rotunda of the Capitol for one year at which time

it shall be moved to a permanent site along with an appropriate educational display, as determined by the commission created in section 3, and an alternative statue

recommended by the commission shall be placed in the

Rotunda;

(2) make all necessary arrangements for a rededication ceremoney of the Portrait Monument in the Rotunda in conjunction with the Woman Suffrage Statue

Campaign; and

(3) use no Federal funds to pay any expense of restoring or moving the statue.

SEC. 2. The Rotunda of the Capitol is authorized to be

used at a time mutually agreed upon by the majority leader

of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives for a ceremony to commemorate and celebrate the statue’s return to the Rotunda.

SEC. 3. A commission of 11 interested parties, including

Senators and Representatives, will be appointed. The majority leader of the Senate will appoint three members and the

minority leader of the Senate will appoint two members to
3

HCON 216 RDS

the commission. The Speaker of the House of Representatives

will appoint one member, the majority leader of the House

of Representatives will appoint two members, the minority

leader of the House of Representatives will appoint two members, and the Architect of the Capitol will serve as the eleventh member of the commission. Immediately following the

relocation of the Portrait Monument, the commission shall—

(1) select a permanent site for the Portrait Monument;

(2) plan and develop an educational display to be

located near the statue at its permanent site, describing

some of the most dramatic events of the suffragettes’

lives;

(3) select an alternative statue for permanent placement in the Rotunda of the Capitol to commemorate the

struggle of women in America for equal rights;

(4) provide its recommendation to the Senate and

the House of Representatives no later than one year

after the relocation of the Portrait Monument; and

(5) use no Federal funds to pay any expense of the

educational display and/or relocation of the Portrait

Monument.

Passed the House of Representatives September 26,

1996.

Attest: ROBIN H. CARLE,

Clerk.