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

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

					NOS. 2-03-071-CR

						2-03-072-CR

						2-03-073-CR

						2-03-074-CR

						2-03-075-CR

						2-03-076-CR

ALFONSO GARCIA, JR. A/K/A 						APPELLANT

ALFONSO GARCIA

	V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS	STATE

	----------

	FROM THE 372ND DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

	----------

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

	----------

	We have considered appellant's “Motion To Withdraw Notice Of  Appeal.”  The motion complies with rule 42.2(a) of the rules of appellate procedure.  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 these appeals.  See id.; Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f).

								PER CURIAM

PANEL D:	WALKER, J.; CAYCE, C.J.; and DAY, J.

		DO NOT PUBLISH

		Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

[DELIVERED MARCH 20, 2003]
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Assistant Secretary Witkowsky’s Travel to Libya and Tunisia

# 									Assistant Secretary Witkowsky’s Travel to Libya and Tunisia							

Media Note

Office of the Spokesperson

October 24, 2023

Assistant Secretary for Conflict and Stabilization Operations Anne A. Witkowsky visited Tripoli, Libya, accompanied by U.S. Special Envoy to Libya Ambassador Richard Norland on October 10.

The Assistant Secretary met with the Presidential Council and other Libyan officials to welcome continued input and engagement from Libyan partners as progress continues on the implementation of the U.S. Strategy to Prevent Conflict and Promote Stability in Libya. She conveyed the United States’ condolences on the devastation wrought by dam failures and flooding in Derna and reiterated that the United States stands with the Libyan people in confronting this tragedy.

The Assistant Secretary reinforced continued U.S. support for Libyan institutions and individuals in their work towards peace, prosperity, and democratic representation for all Libyans. She encouraged progress toward stability and national reconciliation, including through the participation of women and other groups historically underrepresented or marginalized, as integral elements of the development and peacebuilding process.

Assistant Secretary Witkowsky continued the dialogue on the United States’ longstanding security and development partnership with Libya in Tunis, Tunisia on October 11, where she met with representatives of the United Nations and other organizations operating in Libya to foster information sharing and support for our efforts there. For further information, follow @StateCSO on Twitter or contact CSOPublicAffairs1@state.gov.

Tags

Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization OperationsBureau of Near Eastern AffairsDemocracyLibyaOffice of the SpokespersonPeaceSecurityTravelTunisia

Back to Top
§ 526.505 Entries in certain accounts for normal service charges. ( a ) A U.S. financial institution is authorized to debit any blocked account held at that financial institution in payment or reimbursement for normal service charges owed it by the owner of that blocked account.
( b ) As used in this section, the term *normal service charges* shall include charges in payment or reimbursement for interest due; cable, telegraph, internet, or telephone charges; postage costs; custody fees; small adjustment charges to correct bookkeeping errors; and, but not by way of limitation, minimum balance charges, notary and protest fees, and charges for reference books, photocopies, credit reports, transcripts of statements, registered mail, insurance, stationery and supplies, and other similar items.
Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter II
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 78 FR 60697, Oct. 2, 2013.

§ 370.0 What does this part cover? ( a ) *Scope.* This part applies to the transfer of funds by the Automated Clearing House method as used by us in connection with United States securities. This part also provides regulations for the electronic submission of transaction requests through us, except as varied by agreement or as otherwise provided. This part does not apply to transactions for the sale of United States Savings Bonds accomplished through savings bond issuing agents generally, except and to the extent we direct otherwise.
( b ) *Operating Rules of the National Automated Clearing House Association and Regulations of the Financial Management Service.* The Operating Rules of the National Automated Clearing House Association generally apply to these transactions. However, the Operating Rules do not apply to the extent that the Operating Rules are preempted entirely and excluded specifically by application of Financial Management Service regulations in part 210 of this chapter. In the event of any inconsistencies between this part 370 and either the Operating Rules or part 210, this part 370 applies.
( c ) *Regulations of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve.* To the extent that Regulation E (12 CFR part 205) and Regulation Z (12 CFR part 226) of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System apply to transactions authorized by this part, those Federal laws are unaffected by this part 370.
( d ) *Variance by agreement.* The terms of this part may be varied by agreement.
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter II

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 78 FR 60697, Oct. 2, 2013.

#### § 347.32 Annual additions to retirement savings bond.

The amount that initially may be contributed or added to a retirement savings bond in a calendar year by an Auto-IRA custodian on behalf of any participant is limited by the applicable annual contribution limits provided under the Internal Revenue Code and regulations. The total value of a retirement savings bond that may be held by an Auto-IRA custodian in an IRA on behalf of any participant shall not exceed $15,000 for each state Auto-IRA program.
MANDATE

Court of Appeals 

First District of Texas 

NO. 01-14-00671-CV

JOEL A. KOLB AND TRACEY A. KOLB, Appellants

V.

EDWARD S. SCARBROUGH, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEE FOR ECS 

TRUST, ECS TRUST, AND CHERYL SCARBROUGH, Appellees

Appeal from the 268th District Court of Fort Bend County. 

(Tr. Ct. No. 13-DCV-205374).

TO THE 268TH DISTRICT COURT OF FORT BEND COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before this Court, on the 26th day of March 2015, the case upon appeal to revise 

or to reverse your judgment was determined. This Court made its order in these words:

This case is an appeal from the final judgment signed 

by the trial court on July 11, 2014. After submitting the case 

on the appellate record and the arguments properly raised by 

the parties, the Court holds that the trial court’s judgment 

contains no reversible error. Accordingly, the Court affirms 

the trial court’s judgment.

The Court orders that the appellants, Joel A. Kolb and 

Tracey A. Kolb, jointly and severally, pay all appellate costs.

The Court orders that this decision be certified below 

for observance.
Judgment rendered March 26, 2015.

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Brown 

and Lloyd. Opinion delivered by Justice Brown.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court 

in this behalf and in all things to have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

June 5, 2015

Date CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE

 CLERK OF THE COURT
#### § 547.406 Offshore transactions involving blocked property.

The prohibitions in § 547.201 on transactions or dealings involving blocked property, as defined in § 547.302, apply to transactions by any U.S. person in a location outside the United States.
#### § 551.308 [Reserved]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           4,011
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,773
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (40)
<INVENTORY>                                      2,475
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                15,557
<PP&E>                                           9,789
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (3,945)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  81,694
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,301
<BONDS>                                         69,545
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                         408
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    81,694
<SALES>                                         35,092
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                35,092
<CGS>                                           21,726
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   21,726
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                11,614
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,251
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (5,355)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (5,355)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (5,355)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
#### § 552.314 U.S. financial institution.

The term *U.S. financial institution* means any U.S. entity (including its foreign branches) that is engaged in the business of accepting deposits, making, granting, transferring, holding, or brokering loans or other extensions of credit, or purchasing or selling foreign exchange, securities, commodity futures or options, or procuring purchasers and sellers thereof, as principal or agent. It includes depository institutions, banks, savings banks, trust companies, securities brokers and dealers, futures and options brokers and dealers, forward contract and foreign exchange merchants, securities and commodities exchanges, clearing corporations, investment companies, employee benefit plans, and U.S. holding companies, U.S. affiliates, or U.S. subsidiaries of any of the foregoing. This term includes those branches, offices, and agencies of foreign financial institutions that are located in the United States, but not such institutions' foreign branches, offices, or agencies.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

JERRY CHERISTIL,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D20-839

[June 11, 2020]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Elizabeth A. Scherer, 

Judge; L.T. Case No. 10-021114CF10A.

Jerry Cheristil, Century, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

FORST, KLINGENSMITH and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
HomeBiographies...Marcia S.  Bernicat

# 				Marcia S.  Bernicat			

															Director General of The Foreign Service and Director of Global Talent  						Bureau of Global Talent Management												

				May 31, 2022 -									Present							

Marcia Bernicat, a career member of the Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, is currently the Director General of the Foreign Service and Director of Global Talent.Ambassador Bernicat previously served as Acting Assistant Secretary for Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs (OES) and concurrently as the Senior Official for Economic Growth, Energy and the Environment (E) from January-August 2021.  She was a Senior Advisor to the Under Secretary for E from 2020-2021 and Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary in OES from 2019-2020.   She served as Ambassador to Bangladesh from 2015-2018 and to Senegal and Guinea-Bissau from 2008-2011.  Ms. Bernicat previously served domestically in the Department of State as Deputy Assistant Secretary in the Bureau of Human Resources; Office Director for India, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Maldives and Bhutan; Senior-Level Director and Career Development Officer in the Bureau of Human Resources; Special Assistant to Deputy Secretary of State John Whitehead and Watch Officer in the Department’s Operations Center.  She was Deputy Chief of Mission in Bridgetown, Barbados and Lilongwe, Malawi and Principal Officer in Casablanca, Morocco.  Ms. Bernicat’s other overseas assignments include New Delhi, India; Marseille, France and Bamako, Mali.  She is the recipient of the Secretary of State’s Distinguished Service Award and numerous other Department awards.A native of New Jersey, Marcia Bernicat received a Bachelor of Arts in History from Lafayette College and a Master of Science in Foreign Service from Georgetown University.  In 2018 she was awarded an honorary degree of Doctor of Public Service by Lafayette College.  Prior to joining the Foreign Service, Ms. Bernicat worked for the Procter and Gamble Manufacturing Company.  Her languages are French, Hindi and Russian.

Tags

Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific AffairsEnvironmentOceansScienceState Department OfficialUnder Secretary for Economic Growth, Energy, and the Environment

Back to Top
§ 30.9 Q-9: What actions are necessary for a TARP recipient to comply with the standards established under section 111(b)(3)(C) of EESA (the prohibition on golden parachute payments)? ( a ) *Prohibition on golden parachute payments.* To comply with the standards established under section 111(b)(3)(C) of EESA, a TARP recipient must prohibit any golden parachute payment to a SEO and any of the next five most highly compensated employees during the TARP period. A golden parachute payment is treated as paid at the time of departure and is equal to the aggregate present value of all payments made for a departure. Thus, a golden parachute payment during the TARP period may include a right to amounts actually payable after the TARP period.
( b ) *Examples.* The following examples illustrate the provisions of paragraph (a) of this section:
Example 1. Employee A is a SEO of a TARP recipient. Employee A is entitled to a payment of three times his annual compensation upon an involuntary termination of employment or voluntary termination of employment for good reason, but such amount is not payable unless and until the TARP period expires with respect to TARP recipient. Employee A terminates employment during the TARP period. Because, for purposes of the prohibition on golden parachute payments, the payment is made at the time of departure, Employee A may not obtain the right to the payment upon the termination of employment.
Example 2. Employee B involuntarily terminated employment on July 1, 2008, at which time Employee B was a SEO of a financial institution. Employee B's employment agreement provided that if Employee B were involuntarily terminated or voluntarily terminated employment for good reason, Employee B would be entitled to a series of five equal annual payments. After the first payment, but before any subsequent payment, the entity became a TARP recipient. Because, for purposes of the prohibition on golden parachute payments, all of the five payments are deemed to have occurred at termination of employment and because, in this case, termination of employment occurred before the beginning of the applicable TARP period, the payment of the four remaining payments due under the agreement will not violate the requirements of this section.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-1242

DEREK N. JARVIS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

CONTRACTOR SECURITAS SECURITY,

Defendant - Appellee,

and

MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND; ISIAH LEGGETT; MONTGOMERY

COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District 

Judge. (8:11-cv-00654-AW)

Submitted: June 21, 2012 Decided: June 25, 2012

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Derek N. Jarvis, Appellant Pro Se. Edward Victor Arnold, James 

A. Rothschild, ANDERSON, COE & KING, Baltimore, Maryland, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Derek N. Jarvis appeals the district court’s order 

granting Contractor Securitas Security’s motion to dismiss and 

dismissing his civil action. We have reviewed the record and 

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the 

reasons stated by the district court. Jarvis v. Contractor 

Securitas Sec., No. 8:11-cv-00654-AW (D. Md. Feb. 16, 2012). We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
United States Court of Appeals 

for the Fifth Circuit 

No. 19-30972 

Conference Calendar 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee, 

versus

Cedrick Scott, 

Defendant—Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Middle District of Louisiana 

No. 3:99-CR-5-1 

Before Smith, Stewart, and Higginson, Circuit Judges. 

Per Curiam:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Cedrick Scott 

moves to withdraw and has filed a brief per Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 

(1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Scott has 

not filed a response. 

*

 Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4. 

United States Court of Appeals 

Fifth Circuit 

FILED 

July 6, 2021 

Lyle W. Cayce 

Clerk 

Case: 19-30972 Document: 00515925749 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/06/2021
No. 19-30972 

2 

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and relevant portions of the record. 

We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, the motion to withdraw is 

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and 

the appeal is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. 

Case: 19-30972 Document: 00515925749 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/06/2021
#### § 536.316 United States person; U.S. person.

The term *United States person* or *U.S. person* means any United States citizen or national; permanent resident alien; entity organized under the laws of the United States or any jurisdiction within the United States (including foreign branches); or any person in the United States.
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">Fieldbridge Associates, LLC, Respondent,<br><br>against<br><br>Audrey Holmes, Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Jean T. Schneider, J.), dated February 6, 2015. The order denied tenant's motion to vacate a default final judgment and dismiss the petition in a nonpayment summary proceeding.</p><p>ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.</p><p>In this nonpayment proceeding, a default final judgment was entered awarding landlord possession. Thereafter, a motion by tenant to vacate the default final judgment was resolved pursuant to a so-ordered stipulation of settlement, in which, among other things, tenant agreed that she owed rental arrears, and which stayed the execution of the warrant for tenant to pay those arrears. After defaulting in making the required payments, tenant was evicted. About nine months later, after further motions by tenant, tenant moved to vacate the default final judgment and dismiss the petition, arguing, among other things, that service of process upon her was improper and that there were mistakes in the notice of petition and rent demand. By order dated February 6, 2015, tenant's motion was denied.</p><p>Tenant's above-stated claims of error were waived by her entry into the stipulation of settlement (<i>see Ng v Chalasani</i>, 51 Misc 3d 134[A], 2016 NY Slip Op 50544[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th &amp; 13th Jud Dists 2016]; <a href="../2012/2012_51354.htm" target="_blank"><i>Geraci v Jankowitz</i>, 36 Misc 3d 135</a>[A], 2012 NY Slip Op 51354[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th &amp; 13th Jud Dists 2012]; <a href="../2012/2012_50830.htm" target="_blank"><i>1781 Riverside LLC v Chinchu Song</i>, 35 Misc 3d 137</a>[A], 2012 NY Slip Op 50830[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2012]). Her remaining claims do not provide a basis to vacate the default final judgment (<a href="../2015/2015_51203.htm" target="_blank"><i>see e.g. Wira Assoc. v Easy</i>, 48 Misc 3d 137</a>[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 51203[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th &amp; 13th Jud Dists 2015]).</p><p>Accordingly, the order is affirmed.</p><p>Elliot, J.P., Pesce and Solomon, JJ., concur.</p><br>Decision Date: January 20, 2017<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
14910-1J-Pj

~.,-

."

• • • •

Simultaneous loss of alleast two Main Pwnps along with other

potential failures related 10the tn-service event may lead to a dual

engine loss_ I

• • 1

condition on an aviation product The MeAl describes the unsafe condition as:

[f"",,1t h'>«f'}f?5 "fil.'''''V;: P-:¥ '4;'1<{ "c"" rtt>l(/Jwr-"]~ ~'(

An A340·642 operator TlfPorted a Main-Fuel-Pump-4-fault"that

CIl:Cll rred--durirrg"descent'l Anerwardsit"was-foHmved-by-a-2"li'i'irusEiTg

4~Fg~-Me~ al1-d. finally the engineh~~an auto sh~utdown[,J),"iJ

WithM~l. £..b..-.M meJr i;~,I"L"f !,c"I] .<U.A~.

• • •• • ••

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportalion

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the products 1

above. This AD results from m~datory continuing airworthiness information (MeA

I

originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsa

R1N 2120-AA64

(DOT).

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A340~500 and A340-600 Series Airplanes

14 CFR Part 39

(Docket No. FAA-2olo..1J1QDir«torate Identifier 2010-NM-052-AD;

/1-511 'I :23-;)7

Amendment 39•.".11(."..,,; AD 20'O-H_U'

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSiRT ATION

Federal Aviation Administration

This AD requires actions that are intended 10address the unsafe condition described in

FAA Form 136D·14.1 (6-89) ilCIAL ALE COPY 1>'U.S. GO\i1ORNMENl PRINTI"G OFFIC~, \!rS~, 11'9_,"