alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Appel lee ’ s Motion to Dismiss Appeal Denied; Appeal Dismissed and

Memorandum Opinion filed March 16 , 2021.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 20

- 00559

- CV

TIFFANY CARROLL

- CURTIS , Appellant

V.

ESPERANZA BEA TR IZ VASQUEZ , Appellee

On Appeal from the 281st District Court

Harris County, Te xas Trial Court Cause No. 2016

- 88886

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This attempted appeal is from a n order of constructive

, criminal contem pt

signed July 24, 2020

. The validity of a co n t empt order cannot be at tacked by dir ect

appeal. See Ex parte Williams , 690 S.W.2d 243, 243 n. 1 (Tex.1985)

.

On February 19, 2021, notification was transmitted to the parties of this

court’s intention to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction unless a ppellant2

filed a respon se demonstrat ing grounds for continuing the appeal on or before

March 1, 2021

. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a). Appellant filed no response.

W e dismiss the appeal

. 1

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justice s Bourliot, Zimmerer, and S pain

.

1 A pp e llee ’ s motion to di smiss the appeal is denied.
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 on Form 10-Q of Merrill Lynch Preferred
Capital Trust VI (the "Trust") and Merrill Lynch Preferred Funding VI, L.P.
for the period ended March 26, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Haig J. Nargesian,
Regular Trustee of the Trust, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
    of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
    respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Trust.





                              MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED CAPITAL TRUST VI


                              By:  /s/ HAIG J. NARGESIAN
                                   ---------------------------------------------
                              Name:    Haig J. Nargesian *
                              Title:   Regular Trustee









Dated: May 6, 2004
__________________

* Haig J. Nargesian functions as the equivalent of the Chief Executive Officer
  and Chief  Financial  Officer of the Trust for  purposes  of Section  906
  of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
#### John J. Hanley, Respondent, *v.*City of New York, Appellant.

Argued June 4, 1937;

decided July 13, 1937.

*483
      *Paul Windels, Corporation Counsel (William S. Gaud, Jr., Paxton Blair and Robert H. Schaffer),*for appellant.

*Sidney Sugarman*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehmast, Hubbs, Lottghran, Finch and Rippey, JJ. Taking no part: O’Brien, J.
#### § 2571.11 Scope of review by the Secretary.

The review of the Secretary shall be based on the record established before the administrative law judge. There shall be no opportunity for oral argument.
§ 2570.161 Definitions. For 502(c)(8) civil penalty proceedings, this section shall apply in lieu of the definitions in § 18.2 of this title: ( a ) *Adjudicatory proceeding* means a judicial-type proceeding before an administrative law judge leading to the formulation of a final order;
( b ) *Administrative law judge* means an administrative law judge appointed pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 3105;
( c ) *Answer* means a written statement that is supported by reference to specific circumstances or facts surrounding the notice of determination issued pursuant to § 2560.502c-8(g) of this chapter;
( d ) *Commencement of proceeding* is the filing of an answer by the respondent;
( e ) *Consent agreement* means any written document containing a specified proposed remedy or other relief acceptable to the Department and consenting parties;
( f ) *ERISA* means the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended;
( g ) *Final order* means the final decision or action of the Department of Labor concerning the assessment of a civil penalty under ERISA section 502(c)(8) against a particular party. Such final order may result from a decision of an administrative law judge or the Secretary, the failure of a party to file a statement of reasonable cause described in § 2560.502c-8(e) of this chapter within the prescribed time limits, or the failure of a party to invoke the procedures for hearings or appeals under this title within the prescribed time limits. Such a final order shall constitute final agency action within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 704;
( h ) *Hearing* means that part of a proceeding which involves the submission of evidence, by either oral presentation or written submission, to the administrative law judge;
( i ) *Order* means the whole or any part of a final procedural or substantive disposition of a matter under ERISA section 502(c)(8);
( j ) *Party* includes a person or agency named or admitted as a party to a proceeding;
( k ) *Person* includes an individual, partnership, corporation, employee benefit plan, association, exchange or other entity or organization;
( l ) *Petition* means a written request, made by a person or party, for some affirmative action;
( m ) *Pleading* means the notice as defined in § 2560.502c-8(g) of this chapter, the answer to the notice, any supplement or amendment thereto, and any reply that may be permitted to any answer, supplement or amendment;
( n ) *502(c)(8) civil penalty proceeding* means an adjudicatory proceeding relating to the assessment of a civil penalty provided for in section 502(c)(8) of ERISA;
( o ) *Respondent* means the party against whom the Department is seeking to assess a civil sanction under ERISA section 502(c)(8);
( p ) *Secretary* means the Secretary of Labor and includes, pursuant to any delegation of authority by the Secretary, any assistant secretary (including the Assistant Secretary for Employee Benefits Security), administrator, commissioner, appellate body, board, or other official; and
( q ) *Solicitor* means the Solicitor of Labor or his or her delegate.
Editorial Note on Part 20
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 20 appear at 57 FR 31451, July 16, 1992.

§ 20.52 Definitions. For purposes of this subpart— ( a ) The terms *claim* and *debt* are deemed synonymous and interchangeable. They refer to an amount of money or property which has been determined by an appropriate agency official to be owed to the United States from any person, organization or entity, except another federal agency.
( b ) A debt is considered delinquent if it has not been paid by the date specified in the agency's initial demand letter (§ 20.54), unless satisfactory payment arrangements have been made by that date, or if, at any time thereafter, the debtor fails to satisfy his obligations under payment agreement with the Department of Labor, or any agency thereof.
Comments on EPA Methane White Papers

Please find the attached comments to EPA from Chevron on the methane white papers. If you have any questions, please 

feel free to contact myself or Vanessa Ryan at 925­790­3803. 

Thank you. Judy Blanchard

Judith A. Blanchard

Manager, Federal Government Relations

Policy, Government and Public Affairs

Chevron

1401 Eye Street, NW, Suite 1200

Washington, DC 20005

Tel 202 408 5831 

Fax 202 408 5845

jblanchard@chevron.com

Blanchard, Judith A. (jubl) (JBlanchard) <JBlanchard@chevron.com>

Mon 6/16/2014 4:51 PM

To:OilandGas.Whitepapers <OilandGas.Whitepapers@epa.gov>; 

 1 attachment

MPK Chevron Feedback White Papers on Methane and VOC Emissions in the Oil and Natural Gas Sector.pdf; 

Comments on EPA Methane White Papers - OilandGas.Whitepapers Page 1 of 1

https://pod51045.outlook.com/owa/OilandGas.Whitepapers@epa.gov/ 8/26/2014
#### HANZEL v SEARL, Exr.

Ohio Appeals, 4th Dist, Scioto Co

Decided November 22, 1929

Messrs. Bannon & Bannon, Portsmouth, for Hanzel.

Messrs. Miller and Searl, Portsmouth, for Searl.

MIDDLETON, PJ.

There is some discussion in this case regarding positive evidence and negative evidence. Negative evidence, as we understand the term, is nothing more than evidence tending to prove the non-existence of . a fact supported by positive evidence.

In the instant case there is no positive evidence of the fact claimed by the plaintiff, namely, that he loaned.the decedent, W. J. Burke, five, thousand dollars. The only evidence before the court reflecting upon the truth of this claim is circumstantial evidence, and the circumstances in evidence are that on May 16, 1927, the plaintiff in error delivered to Burke his check for five thousand dollars, which check Burke in turn endorsed to the Vulcan Last Company, which company credited Burke’s account with that amount. There are some other circumstánces in evidence which might be considered in a remote way to be consistent with the claim that this was a loan. The difficulty with this case is not in the failure of the evidence to establish that it was not a loan but in the complete failure to establish that it was a loan. It was observed by the court during the- submission of the case that the judgment of the lower court was protected by the same rules which apply to the verdict of a jury, and there is certainly nothing in the record which would justify a reviewing court in holding that the judgment of the lower court was against the manifest weight of the evidence. Such a situation could not be when the record fails to disclose any evidence to establish the claim that the check was given to Burke as a loan.

The judgment is affirmed.

Mauck and Blosser, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of County of Orange, Appellant, v Civil Service Employees’ Association, Inc., Local 1000 American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees’ Union AFL-CIO, Orange County Local 836, Respondent.

[697 NYS2d 688]

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to vacate an arbitration award, the petitioner appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Peter C. Patsalos, J.), dated October 22, 1998, which denied the petition, and (2) *213a judgment of the same court, entered November 5, 1998, which, *inter alia,*denied the petition and confirmed the arbitrator’s award.

Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondent is awarded one bill of costs.

The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in this proceeding *(see, Matter of Aho,*39 NY2d 241, 248). The issues raised on appeal from the order have been considered on the appeal from the judgment *(see,*CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).

There is a rational basis for the ultimate determination of the arbitrator that article 23 of the contract between the appellant and the respondent was violated by the appellant’s failure to appoint Anthony Uzzo, Jr., to the position of Building Maintenance Mechanic at the Orange County Residential Health Care Facility and that the remedy for that violation was to order his appointment to that position. Although the arbitrator may have misinterpreted a contract provision or provisions in making the award, that is not a basis for overturning an award where, as here, the determination was neither irrational, violative of a strong public policy, nor in excess of the arbitrator’s authority *(see, Matter of Silverman [Benmor Coats],*61 NY2d 299; *Maross Constr. v Central N. Y. Regional Transp. Auth.,*66 NY2d 341).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit or academic in light of our determination. S. Miller, J. P., Ritter, Florio and H. Miller, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of The City of New York, Respondent, Relative to Acquiring Title to Lands along the Northerly Shore of Jamaica Bay in the Boroughs of Brooklyn and Queens for the Improvement of the Water Front. Harry A. Hanbury, Appellant.

Argued May 27, 1937;

decided July 13, 1937.

*459
      *Leon Sacks*for appellant.

*Paul Windels, Corporation Counsel (Lewis Orgel, Paxton Blair*and *Alfred D. Jahr*of counsel), for respondent.

Order affirmed, without costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Loughran, Finch and Rippey, JJ.
[No. 50221-2-I.

Division One.

November 25, 2002.]

#### Derrick Dwayne Coleman, *Appellant,*v. David S. Teske, et al., *Respondents.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 01-2-30809-2, James A. Doerty, J., entered February 11, 2002. *Reversed*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
EXHIBIT 10.30



August 8, 2001


Mr. Sal Visca
c/o Infowave Software, Inc.

Dear Sal:

We are pleased to advise you that the Board of Directors  of Infowave  Software,
Inc.,  has  acceded to your  request for an  interest  free loan of  $175,000.00
(CDN), on the condition that you remain an employee for at least the next twelve
months and that you execute the attached Promissory Note.

Please note that the amount  evidenced by the Promissory  Note will be repayable
by you on the  earlier  of  July  31,  2003,  or the  last  day of  your  active
employment in circumstances where you resign or your employment is terminated by
the  company  with or  without  cause.  In  addition,  by signing  the  enclosed
Promissory Note you are acknowledging that you have incurred a credit obligation
to Infowave, repayment of which may be deducted from any bonus payable to you on
or after the maturity date of the loan.

Please also note that Infowave is required under the Income Tax Act to treat the
prescribed rate of interest as a taxable benefit to you.

We will be in a position to advance the funds to you within 5 days of receipt of
your signed Promissory Note.

We trust that you will  appreciate  that the details of this loan should be held
in strict confidence by you and that maintenance of the  confidentiality  of the
details of this loan by you is a condition of your employment.

Please  sign both  copies of the  Promissory  Note and  return one copy to me by
August 13, 2001 and retain the other copy for your records.

INFOWAVE SOFTWARE, INC.


Todd Carter
Chief Financial Officer


I have read, understood and accept the terms of this letter.


----------------------------------               ---------------------------
Sal Visca                                        Date
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 100 (Tuesday, May 23, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 33339]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12900]



[[Page 33339]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research; Notice of 
Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meetings.
    The Meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial 
Research Special Emphasis Panel 00-73, DE Contract N01DE72623.
    Date: May 19, 2000.
    Time: 10 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate contract proposals.
    Place: Natcher Building, Rm. 4AN44F, Bethesda, MD 20892, 
(Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Anna Sandberg, PhD, Scientific Review 
Administrator, National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Res., 
45 Center Drive, Natcher Building, RM. 4N44F, Bethesda, MD 20892.
    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and 
funding cycle.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial 
Research Special Emphasis Panel 00-68, Review of R01s.
    Date: June 22, 2000.
    Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Pooks Hill Marriott, 5151 Pooks Hill Road, Bethesda,MD 
20814.
    Contact Person: Anna Sandberg, PhD, Scientific Review 
Administrator, National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Res., 
45 Center Drive, Natcher Building, RM. 4AN44F, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial 
Research Special Emphasis Panel 00-57, Review of R01.
    Date: August 28, 2000.
    Time: 1 p.m. to 3 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: 45 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone 
Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Philip Washko, PhD, DMD, Scientific Review 
Administrator, 4500 Center Drive, Natcher Building, Rm. 4AN44F, 
National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 594-2372.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.121, Oral 
Diseases and Disorders Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: May 16, 2000.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 00-12900 Filed 5-22-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
#### New York Title Insurance Company, Respondent, *v.*Louise Gerdes, Appellant, Impleaded with Another.

Argued June 2, 1937;

decided July 13, 1937.

*492
      *Samuel Silbiger*for appellant.

*Albert A. DuPont*and *Stephen J. Masse*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

, Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs Lottghran, Finch and Rippey, JJ.
§ 1610.21 Annual report. ( a ) The Legal Counsel shall, on or before February 1, submit individual Freedom of Information Act reports for each principal agency FOIA component and one for the entire agency covering the preceding fiscal year to the Attorney General of the United States and to the director of the Office of Information Government Services. The reports shall include those matters required by 5 U.S.C. 552(e), and shall be made available electronically on the agency Web site.
( b ) The Commission will make each such report available for public inspection in an electronic format. In addition, the Commission will make the raw statistical data used in each report available in a timely manner for public inspection in an electronic format, which will be available— ( 1 ) Without charge, license, or registration requirement;
( 2 ) In an aggregated, searchable format; and
( 3 ) In a format that may be downloaded in bulk.
( c ) When and as directed by the Attorney General, the Chief FOIA Officer, through the Office of the Chair, shall review and report to the Attorney General on the agency's performance in implementing its responsibilities under FOIA.
[78 FR 36653, June 19, 2013, as amended at 81 FR 95879, Dec. 29, 2016]
EXHIBIT 12.1


                      CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION

I, Felipe Menendez Ross, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Ultrapetrol (Bahamas)
     Limited;

2.   Based on my knowledge, this report does 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, the financial statements, and other financial
     information included in this report, fairly present in all material
     respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of
     the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.   The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
     establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
     in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)): for the registrant and
     have:

     (a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
          disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
          supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the
          registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to
          us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
          which this report is being prepared;

     (b)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
          and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
          effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
          of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

     (c)  Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
          control over financial reporting that occurred during the period
          covered by this annual report that has materially affected, or is
          reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal
          control over financial reporting; and

5.   The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on
     our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
     the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board
     of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

     (a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
          operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
          reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to
          record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

     (b)  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
          employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
          control over financial reporting.

Date: April [  ], 2006

/s/ Felipe Menendez Ross
--------------------------------
Felipe Menendez Ross

Director, Chief Executive
Officer, and President
§ 4041A.12 Contents of notice. ( a ) *Information to be contained in notice.* A notice of termination under § 4041A.11 required to be filed with PBGC must contain the information and certification specified in the instructions for the notice of termination on PBGC's website (*www.pbgc.gov*).
( b ) *Additional information.* In addition to the information required under paragraph (a) of this section, PBGC may require the submission of any other information that PBGC determines is necessary for review of a notice of termination.
[84 FR 18722, May 2, 2019]