alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
*Pursuant to 5

TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except underthe limited circumstancessetforth in 5

TH

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-50855

Summary Calendar

RUSSELL HICKERSON, Trustee,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

PHILADELPHIA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

(MO-97-CV-192)

March 25, 1999

Before POLITZ, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Russell Hickerson appeals an adverse summary judgment in this action

alleging breach of an insurance contract and several extra-contractual claims.

For the reasons assigned, we affirm.

We review de novo the trial court’s grant of summary judgment,

conducting a plenary review of the record and considering the evidence in the
 

1

International Shortstop, Inc. v. Rally’s, Inc., 939 F.2d 1257 (5th Cir. 1991).

 

2 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986).

2

light most favorable to the non-movant.1 If we find no genuine dispute of

material fact, we deem summary judgment appropriate.2

Our review of the record and briefs discloses no reversible error and,

accordingly, on the facts asfound, the authorities cited, and analysis made by the

district court in itsthorough Order on Motion for Summary Judgmentsigned and

filed on July 27, 1998, the judgment appealed is AFFIRMED.
#### § 136.73 Definitions.

For the purposes of this subpart:

*Air tour* means any sightseeing flight conducted under visual flight rules in an airplane, powered-lift, or rotorcraft for compensation or hire.

*Air tour operator* means any person who conducts an air tour.
Order entered July 9, 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 19

- 00339

- CV

METHODIST HOSPITALS OF DALLAS, Appellant

V.

VICKIE MILES, INDIVI DUALLY, AS THE REPRE SENTATI VE FOR ALL WRONGFUL DEATH BENEF ICIARIES, AND AS AN HEIR AT LAW AND REPRESENTATIVE OF TH E ESTATE OF W.T. MAY ES, DECEASED, Appellee

On Appeal from the 101st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 17

- 16088



### O RDER

In accordance with our June 14, 2019 order to file either a motion to dismiss or a status

report as to the progress of the parties' settlement, appellant has filed a status report informing

the Court progress has been made but additional time is needed to finalize the agreement. We

construe the report as a motion to extend and GRANT the motion. We ORDER appellant to file

either a motion to dismiss or status report no later than August 2, 2019.

/s/ ERIN A. NOWELL JUSTICE
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Transportation

###### Coast Guard 

          - 33 CFR Part 100 
          - [CGD 05-00-009] 
          - RIN 2115-AE46 

# AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DOT. 

# ACTION:

Notice of implementation. 

# SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard is implementing the special local regulations at 33 CFR 100.518 for the Navy Crew Rowing Race, a marine event to be held April 29 and May 26, 2000 on the waters of the Severn River at Annapolis, Maryland. These special local regulations are necessary to control vessel traffic due to the confined nature of the waterway and expected vessel congestion during the event. The effect will be to restrict general navigation in the regulated area for the safety of spectators and vessels transiting the event area. 

# DATES:

33 CFR 100.518 is effective from 6 a.m. to 10 a.m. on April 29 and from 6 a.m. to 10 a.m. on May 26, 2000. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Chief Warrant Officer R. L. Houck, Marine Events Coordinator, Commander, Coast Guard Activities Baltimore, 2401 Hawkins Point Road, Baltimore, MD 21226-1971, (410) 576-2674. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The U.S. Naval Academy will sponsor the Navy Crew Rowing Races on the waters of the Severn River at Annapolis, Maryland. The event will consist of Navy crew rowing teams in competition with other crew rowing teams from other universities. In order to ensure the safety of participants, spectators and transiting vessels, 33 CFR 100.518 will be in effect for the duration of the event. Under provisions of 33 CFR 100.518, vessels may not enter the regulated area without permission from the Coast Guard Patrol Commander. Spectator vessels may anchor outside the regulated area but may not block a navigable channel. Because these restrictions will only be in effect for a limited period, they should not result in a significant disruption of maritime traffic. 

Dated: April 11, 2000. 

J.E. Shkor, 

Vice Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. 00-10846 Filed 5-1-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3728

To amend title 49, United States Code, to allow additional transit systems 

greater flexibility with certain mass transportation projects. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 23, 2004

Mr. PITTS (for himself, Mr. BURGESS, and Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL

To amend title 49, United States Code, to allow additional 

transit systems greater flexibility with certain mass 

transportation projects.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Transit System Flexi5 bility Protection Act of 2004’’. 

6 SEC. 2. GENERAL AUTHORITY. 

7 Section 5307(b)(1) of title 49, United States Code, 

8 is amended by adding at the end the following: ‘‘The Sec9 retary may make grants under this section to a transit 
2

•HR 3728 IH 

1 system to finance the operating cost of equipment and fa2 cilities for use in mass transportation in an urbanized area 

3 with a population of more than 200,000 if such transit 

4 system operates less than 100 buses on fixed route service 

5 during peak service hours.’’.

Æ
2

•HR 3728 IH 

1 system to finance the operating cost of equipment and fa2 cilities for use in mass transportation in an urbanized area 

3 with a population of more than 200,000 if such transit 

4 system operates less than 100 buses on fixed route service 

5 during peak service hours.’’.

Æ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO 

In re:

THE FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT AND 

MANAGEMENT BOARD FOR PR, as 

representative of the COMMONWEALTH 

OF PR et. al. 

Debtors

PROMESA 

Title III 

No. 17 BK 3283-LTS 

(jointly administered) 

MOTION ABOUT NOTICE OF ABSENCE

TO THE HONORABLE COURT 

The undersigned attorney respectfully appears and prays: 

The subscribing attorney has entered his appearance in representation of creditor Laura E. 

Climent Garcia.

Please take notice that the undersigned will be away with his family on vacation outside 

of Puerto Rico since May 20, 2018, returning to his law office on May 31, 2018.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED 

San Juan, Puerto Rico, May 16, 2018

I certify that on this same date I filed the foregoing by uploading to the CM/ECF System, 

which will send automatic notices to the parties and/or attorneys of record 

S/ JORGE LUIS GUERRERO-CALDERÓN 

JORGE LUIS GUERRERO-CALDERÓN

USDC-PR 116806

Attorney for Creditor 

Maria E. Alonso-Fuentes 

301 Calle Recinto Sur, Suite 502 

San Juan, Puerto Rico 00901-1945 

tuttieguerrero@yahoo.com

(787) 723-3355 fax (787) 721-2126

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3078 Filed:05/16/18 Entered:05/16/18 16:42:00 Desc: Main

Document Page 1 of 1
#### § 205.8 Cargo liability disclosure statement.

Every direct U.S. or foreign air carrier providing air cargo service in air transportation shall give notice in writing to the shipper, when a shipment is accepted, of the existence or absence of cargo liability insurance, and the limits on the extent of its liability, if any. The notice shall be clearly and conspicuously included on or attached to all of its rate sheets and airwaybills.

[ER-1282, 47 FR 16173, Apr. 15, 1982]
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.2

(PRG SCHULTZ LOGO)



March 07, 2003



Mr. Mark Perlberg
30 Green Park Court
Atlanta, GA 30327

Dear Mark:


This letter confirms our agreement to amend, effective February 24, 2003, your
employment agreement with PRG-Schultz USA, Inc. dated March 2, 2001 (the
"Agreement") in the following respects:

1. Base salary increase from $400,000.00 per annum (including employee
   deferral) paid $15,384.62 bi-weekly, to $425,000.00 per annum (including
   employee deferral) paid $16,346.15 bi-weekly in accordance with the Company's
   customary payroll procedures.

2. Increase car allowance from $12,000.00 per annum, paid $1,000.00 monthly to
   $25,000.00 per annum paid $2,083.34 monthly during your employment and
   prorated for partial periods.

3. Change of bonus payment percentages from payment of 40% of base salary if
   PRGX meets established target goals and payment of 80% of base salary if PRGX
   meets established maximum goals to bonus payment of 50% of base salary for
   meeting established target goals and payment of 100% of base salary for
   meeting established maximum goals.

Except for the amendments above, the terms of the Agreement shall continue in
full force and effect as originally executed.

Should you have any questions, please give me a call.

Best wishes,


/s/ JOHN COOK
--------------------------
John Cook
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-16-00329-CV

IN THE MATTER OF A.J., A JUVENILE

From the 272nd District Court

Brazos County, Texas

Trial Court No. 418-J-15

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In an order issued February 15, 2017, we ordered briefing on the question of 

whether this proceeding is moot1 because the juvenile court judge does not appear to 

have adopted the referee’s “Order Modifying Disposition” signed by the referee on 

August 29, 2016.2 As explained in our earlier order, if the referee’s order was not adopted 

by the juvenile court judge the next working day after it was received, it “results in release 

of the child by operation of law....” TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 54.10(d) (West 2014).

 

1 Generally, an appeal is moot when the court's action on the merits cannot affect the rights of the parties. 

See VE Corp. v. Ernst & Young, 860 S.W.2d 83, 84 (Tex. 1993).

2 At the end of the Order Modifying Disposition is a document entitled, “Referee’s Report” which 

recommends that the “foregoing proposed order be adopted as the judgment of the Court.” A paragraph 

adopting the “foregoing orders” is provided at the bottom of the Referee’s Report with a space for the date 

and the signature of the “Judge Presiding.” These spaces are blank.
In the Matter of A.J., a Juvenile Page 2

The Court ordered briefing on this issue within 14 days. 

The State filed a response which did not directly address the referenced statute but 

suggested the appeal was moot for similar reasons.

The appellant has failed to file a response.

The referee’s order is a nullity if it is not timely acted upon by the juvenile court 

judge. The juvenile court judge did not act upon the referee’s order. The referee’s order 

does not, and cannot, be the basis for a modification of the juvenile’s disposition order.

Because the referee’s order was not adopted by the juvenile court judge, we agree 

with the State that there is nothing to appeal. The referee’s Order Modifying Disposition 

is a nullity, and this appeal is moot. Accordingly, the Order Modifying Disposition is 

vacated, and this appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See Heckman v. Williamson 

Cty., 369 S.W.3d 137, 162 (Tex. 2012) (“If a case is or becomes moot, the court must vacate 

any order or judgment previously issued and dismiss the case for want of jurisdiction.”).

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Appeal dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed March 22, 2017

[CV06]
Exhibit 10.13


 


 


EXTENSION
AGREEMENT


 


 


Bank of America, N.A.,


as Administrative Agent


231 South LaSalle Street


Chicago, Illinois 60604


 


Ladies and Gentlemen:


 


The undersigned hereby
agrees to extend, effective April 3, 2003, its Commitment and the Maturity Date
under the Credit Agreement dated as of April 3, 2001, among SOURCECORP,
Incorporated (formerly known as F.Y.I., Incorporated), each of the Lenders
party thereto, Bank of America, N.A., as Administrative Agent, and Banc of
America Securities LLC, as sole lead arranger and sole book agent (as the same
has been amended or otherwise modified from time to time, the “Credit
Agreement”) for 364 days to April 1, 2006, pursuant to Section 2.1(d)
of the Credit Agreement.  Terms defined
in the Credit Agreement are used herein as therein defined.


 


This Extension Agreement
shall be construed in accordance with and governed by the law of the State of
Texas.  This Extension Agreement may be
signed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be an original, with
the same effect as if the signatures thereto and hereto were upon the same
instrument.


 


	
  WASHINGTON
  MUTUAL BANK

  
	
   

  
	
  By:

  	
  /s/Elizabeth Records

  
	
   

  	
  Name:

  	
  Elizabeth Records

  
	
   

  	
  Title:

  	
  A.V.P. — Credit Manager

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  



 


 


Agreed and Accepted:


 


	
  SOURCECORP, INCORPORATED

  
	
   

  
	
  By:

  	
  /s/Barry L. Edwards

  
	
   

  	
  Name:

  	
  Barry L. Edwards

  
	
   

  	
  Title:

  	
  EVP & CFO

  
	
   

  
	
  BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., as
  Administrative Agent

  
	
   

  
	
  By:

  	
  /s/Suzanne M. Paul

  
	
   

  	
  Name:

  	
  Suzanne M. Paul

  
	
   

  	
  Title:

  	
  Vice President
Exhibit 32.3



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER,

AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002.



In connection with the quarterly report of Ecosphere Technologies, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Adrian Goldfarb, Chief Financial 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 to my knowledge:



1.

The quarterly 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 quarterly report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Date: November 12, 2008

| |     |                                                                      
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------
| | By: | /s/ ADRIAN GOLDFARB                                                  
| |     | Adrian Goldfarb
Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2014-3986 Directorate Identifier: 2015-NM-057-AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If 

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Do not include oncondition costs here

Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

propeller, appliance)

Work-hours

(include 

access, testing, 

and close-up)

Labor 

cost 

(@$85/h

our)

Parts Cost Total Costs 

(labor + 

parts)

Number of 

U.S. 

Registered 

Products

Total Cost 

for U.S. Fleet

Bombardier 

Service Bulletin 

(SB) 84-54-19, 

Initial Issue, dated 

18 April 2013 

1.5 $ 127.50 $ 127.50 80 $10,200.00

Bombardier SB 84-

54-21, Initial Issue, 

dated 9 May 2013 

3.0 $ 255.00 $4 $ 259.00 80 $20,720.00

Bombardier SB 84-

54-20, Revision B, 

dated 2 October 

2014

21.0 $1,785.0

0

$1,785.00 80 $142,800.00

ombardier SB 84-

32-112, Revision 

B, dated 12 

September 2014

12.0 $1,020.0

0

$4,977 $5,997.00 80 $479,760.00

Bombardier SB 84-

32-114, Revision 

A, dated 18 

September 2013

12.0 $1,020.0

0

$3,470 $4,490.00 80 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

The known number of products in compliance:
Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $653,480

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $

On-Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Work-hours 

(include access, 

testing, and closeup)

Labor cost 

(@$85/hour)

Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs):

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? 

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES* NO 

*Explanation:
**EXHIBIT
      32.2 – CFO Certification**








**SATELLITE
      NEWSPAPERS CORP.**





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


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


**AS
      ADDED BY**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**








In
      connection with the Annual Report of Satellite Newspapers Corp. (the
      "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with
      the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Randy
      Hibma, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss.
      1350, as added by ss. 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 as of and
      for
      the period covered by the Report.





By:
      /s/ Randy Hibma


Randy
      Hibma


Chief
      Financial Officer





April
      17,
      2007





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002 ("Section 906"), or other document authenticating, acknowledging,
      or
      otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the
      electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been
      provided to Satellite Newspapers Corp., and will be retained by Satellite
      Newspapers Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
      its
      staff upon request.
§ 25.333 Flight maneuvering envelope. ( a ) *General.* The strength requirements must be met at each combination of airspeed and load factor on and within the boundaries of the representative maneuvering envelope (*V-n* diagram) of paragraph (b) of this section. This envelope must also be used in determining the airplane structural operating limitations as specified in § 25.1501.
( b ) *Maneuvering envelope.*
[Doc. No. 5066, 29 FR 18291, Dec. 24, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 25-86, 61 FR 5220, Feb. 9, 1996]
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.20

                       AMENDMENT TO 1997 STOCK OPTION PLAN


         On October 16, 2002, the Stockholders of the Company approved the
following amendment to the 1997 Stock Option Plan (the "1997 Plan"):

         Section 5(b) of the 1997 Plan is hereby amended by increasing the
maximum aggregate number of shares that may be issued in excess of those made
available under the Corporation's 1994 Stock Option Plan to 2,000,000 shares,
and by increasing the aggregate number of shares that may be covered by options
awarded to any Optionee to 50,000 shares per calendar year. Section 5(b) shall
read as follows effective upon approval by the Corporation's stockholders:

                  "(b) MAXIMUM SHARES. The aggregate number of shares that may
         be issued under Options pursuant to the Plan shall not exceed 2,000,000
         shares plus (i) shares, if any, reserved for issuance under the 1994
         Plan in excess of the number of shares as to which options have been
         granted thereunder, and (ii) any shares as to which options may have
         terminated due to expiration, cancellation, forfeiture, or otherwise
         without the issuance of such shares under the 1994 Plan. The aggregate
         number of shares with respect to which Options may be granted pursuant
         to the Plan to any Optionee shall not exceed 50,000 shares per calendar
         year. The limitations established in Section 5 of the Plan shall be
         subject to adjustment as provided in Section 9 of the Plan."

         Terms used in the Amendment and not defined herein are used herein as
they are defined in the 1997 Plan. References in the 1997 Plan to "this 1997
Plan" (and indirect references such as "hereof" and "herein") are amended to
refer to the 1997 Plan as amended by this Amendment.


















                                       23
### **	


	 
**  ** 		**  **				  !	"#**  **$
%
			
 ** 

**					&'
"$
!""(	)** **	*	** **			)

"**

**+	,'(*)
	** **	 	%
	-	

	**  **	 
"%
	

)**  **	.,," $
					
**  **	
		 	)	
-/**  **0	**

**(	)		*		** **	%
	- 	

"** 

**+	12)"0		*.&'	** **
%
	** **3	(	)		4	(*** **
	** **)	
-	

"*&** **'	
	 		
	)**  **.(*"**

***&'	
	
		 	**  **.

		5 		**  **	
	
		
 	** 

**		

!	" ** 

**6	.	. 		**  **		

	
	) **  **.	)		

 ".	**  **)		.)	
 ).**  **
(*0				
** **	 .
	
**  	


**"**

**(*

.
	7** **8		 


	
)
)**  **	** **%
	-	

"(*** **		 		9** 

 **$
5	

*&'	** **	.** **
(*-)"**

 **$
5	

*&'	
		** **	**

**

"**

### 	


	





**$
(*
			** **		.
		 )	%
	-	**  **	

"**

	


 	 	****

 !" #"$"%& '()*+	"



###  **$

.	9**

 **: "	")**  **	**

**3+3/"** **(*;<4;=;,>;****?7
8"**

 **		 ;@")** ****

 **	.(*3	**

**!""(	)		*	** **	 %,',,$,**  ***		)	)"/
		**

**3,
A"**

**	.

**

**3.'**

 **	. 		
.
**  **
					 		)"** 

**(*).	** **.				

 )
	%
	-**  **	

"**



### 	
		
	


 **: "	")**  **73**

**+3/"** **(*;<4;=;,>;?8"**

 **;';A,;'
> '9>""
9>""** 

 **	(	 ;**  **@")**

**73+3/"****(*;<4;=;,>;?8"** 

#