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

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-21-00209-CR

TODD ORLANDO MIDDLETON,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 77th District Court

Limestone County, Texas

Trial Court No. 14554-A

ABATEMENT ORDER

On August 23, 2021, attorney Justin Reed, on behalf of Appellant Todd Orlando 

Middleton, filed with the trial court clerk a notice of appeal from the judgment of 

conviction and sentence rendered against Middleton in the underlying case. We 

subsequently received a copy of the notice of appeal and filed it in the appeal bearing the 

number and style shown above.
Middleton v. State Page 2

We were then notified that on September 21, 2021, attorney Logan Sawyer, on 

behalf of Middleton, filed with the trial court clerk an “Appearance of Counsel for 

Limited Purpose and Defendant’s Withdrawal of Appeal.” 

On November 10, 2021, the Clerk of this Court sent a letter to both Reed and 

Sawyer, informing them that the Court had been notified about the filing with the trial 

court clerk of the “Appearance of Counsel for Limited Purpose and Defendant’s 

Withdrawal of Appeal.” The November 10 letter pointed out that Sawyer had not filed a 

notice of appearance of counsel with this Court and that no motion to dismiss this appeal 

had been filed with this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.2, 42.2(a). The November 10 letter

further stated: “If Middleton no longer wants to continue with this appeal, Middleton’s 

counsel should file with this Court a motion to dismiss complying with Rule 42.2(a).”

On November 22, 2021, Sawyer filed with the Clerk of this Court “Defendant’s 

Motion to Dismiss Appeal,” which stated that Sawyer had spoken with Middleton and 

that Middleton had instructed Sawyer that Middleton no longer desires to pursue this 

appeal. Middleton, however, had not personally signed the motion. See id. R. 42.2(a).

We therefore issued an order on November 30, 2021, denying Middleton’s motion 

to dismiss this appeal because the motion did not comply with Rule of Appellate 

Procedure 42.2(a). The order nevertheless stated: “If, however, Appellant files a motion 

to dismiss this appeal that complies with Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.2(a), specifically 

including Appellant’s signature in addition to his counsel’s, the Court will rule on the 

motion as appropriate.”
Middleton v. State Page 3

To date, we have received no further correspondence from Middleton or his 

counsel. Accordingly, we abate this cause to the trial court for a hearing to determine 

whether Middleton wants to continue with this appeal.

The trial court shall conduct the hearing within 21 days from the date of this Order. 

The trial court clerk and court reporter shall file supplemental records within 35 days 

after the date of this Order.

In the meantime, if Middleton files a motion to dismiss this appeal that complies 

with Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.2(a), specifically including Middleton’s signature in 

addition to his counsel’s, we will reinstate this appeal and rule on the motion as 

appropriate.

PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Johnson, and

Justice Smith

Order issued and filed January 24, 2022

RWR
<PAGE>

                                                                  Exhibit 4.4(b)

                           TRIAD ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT

                                                    May 11, 1999

Reference is hereby made to the Exchange and Registration Rights Agreement,
dated May 11, 1999 (the "Agreement"), between Healthtrust, Inc.-The Hospital
Company ("Healthtrust") and the Purchasers named therein. Unless otherwise
defined herein, terms defined in the Agreement and used herein shall have the
meanings given them in the Agreement.

Triad Hospitals, Inc. ("Triad") hereby unconditionally and irrevocably expressly
assumes, confirms and agrees to perform and observe as the "Company" each and
every of the covenants, agreements, terms, conditions, obligations,
appointments, duties, promises and liabilities of Healthtrust under the
Agreement, and upon the Business being validly transferred to Triad, the
assumption by Triad of the indebtedness evidenced by the Securities and
Healthtrust and Triad executing and delivering this Triad Assumption Agreement,
Healthtrust shall fully, unconditionally and irrevocably be released of all
covenants, agreements, terms, conditions, obligations, appointment, duties,
promises and liabilities under the Agreement.

Each of the undersigned hereby agrees to promptly execute and deliver any and
all further documents and take such further action as the other undersigned
party or the Representatives may reasonably require to effect the purpose of
this Triad Assumption Agreement.

This Triad Assumption Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance
with the laws of the State of New York.

                                          HEALTHTRUST, INC.-THE HOSPITAL
                                          COMPANY


                                          By:  /s/ R. Milton Johnson
                                               --------------------------------
                                               Name:  R. Milton Johnson
                                               Title:  Vice President

                                          TRIAD HOSPITALS, INC.


                                          By:  /s/ Donald P. Fay
                                               --------------------------------
                                               Name:  Donald P. Fay
                                               Title:  Executive Vice President
#### § 570.129 Limited driving of automobiles and trucks by 17-year-olds.

Section 13(c)(6) of the FLSA provides an exemption for 17-year-olds, but not 16-year-olds, who, as part of their employment, perform the occasional and incidental driving of automobiles and trucks on public highways under specified conditions. These specific conditions, which are contained in HO 2 (§ 570.52), include that the automobile or truck may not exceed 6,000 pounds gross vehicle weight, the driving must be restricted to daylight hours, the vehicle must be equipped with a seat belt or similar restraining device for the driver and for any passengers, and the employer must instruct the employee that such belts or other devices must be used. In addition, the 17-year-old must hold a State license valid for the type of driving involved in the job, have successfully completed a State-approved driver education course, and have no records of any moving violations at the time of his or her hire. The exemption also prohibits the minor from performing any driving involving the towing of vehicles; route deliveries or route sales; the transportation for hire of property, goods, or passengers; urgent, time-sensitive deliveries; or the transporting of more than three passengers at any one time. The exemption also places limitations on the number of trips the 17-year-old may make each day and restricts the driving to a 30-mile radius of the minor's place of employment.

[75 FR 28459, May 20, 2010]
§ 570.112 General. ( a ) Section 12(c) of the Act provides as follows: No employer shall employ any oppressive child labor in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce or in an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce.
( b ) This provision, which was added by amendments of 1949 and 1961 to the Act, broadens child labor coverage to include employment in commerce. Moreover, it establishes a direct prohibition of the employment of oppressive child labor in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce. The legislative history pertaining to this provision leads to the conclusion that Congress intend its application to be generally consistent with that of wage and hours coverage provisions. The application of the provision depends on the existence of two necessary elements: ( 1 ) The employment of “oppressive child labor”[24] by some employer and
( 2 ) the employment of such oppressive child labor in activities or enterprises which are in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce within the meaning of the Act.
[36 FR 25156, Dec. 29, 1971] Footnotes -
570.112
[24] “Oppressive child labor” is discussed in §§ 570.117 to 570.121, inclusive.
[25] [Reserved]
§ 778.410 The guaranty under section 7(f). ( a ) The statute provides that the guaranty must be a weekly guaranty. A guaranty of monthly, semimonthly, or biweekly pay (which would allow averaging wages over more than one workweek) does not qualify under this paragraph. Obviously guarantees for periods less than a workweek do not qualify. Whatever sum is guaranteed must be paid in full in all workweeks, however short in which the employee performs any amount of work for the employer. The amount of the guaranty may not be subject to proration or deduction in short weeks.
( b ) The contract must provide a guaranty of pay. The amount must be specified. A mere guaranty to provide work for a particular number of hours does not qualify under this section.
( c ) The pay guaranteed must be “for not more than 60 hours based on the rate so specified.”
Need to return call by / at/between and . Signature: Project No.: 0172.08.005.603 Page 1 of 1

Project Name: DMR2009 

### CBI? Yes No TELEPHONE CALL RECORD Incoming Outgoing Date: 02/23/11 Time: 3:00 am pm

Company Name: Butler County Landfill ERG Staff Name: Kimberly Landick and Elizabeth Sabol

Contact Name: Marletta Cozad Contact Phone Number: (573) 840-9750 General Subject: 2009 DMR Lead Discharges



### TOPICS DISCUSSED AND ACTION TAKEN

ERG Contact: Kimberly Landick

On February 23, 2011 at 3pm I called the Missouri Depart ment of Natural Resources and asked to speak with someone about water quality monitoring. I was transfe rred to the Water Protection Program and they took my name and number and told me someone would get back to me shortly.

On February 24, 2011 at 3pm Marletta Cozad at the SE Regional Office (573-840-9750) returned my call and confirmed the values below: Lead Concentration: 2010 Outfall 001 77 UGL 2009 Outfall 001 51 UGL 2009 Outfall 002 13 UGL Flow: 20090930 Outfall 001 1.8 MGD 20090930 Outfall 022 1.5 MGD We have MGL for concentration values. Recommend chan ging concentration units to micrograms per liter, not milligrams per liter.

ERG Contact: Elizabeth Sabol

On May 18, 2011 at 11:30 am, I called Ms. Cozad to ask about the copper concentrat ions reported in the 2009 DMR database. Ms. Cozed stated that the Septembe r 2009 copper concentration for Outfall 001 was 21 ug/L, not 21 mg/L. Copper concentrations and other pollutants of similar magnitude were divided by 1,000 to convert value to ug/L.
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed October 26, 2022.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D21-1485

Lower Tribunal No. 19-3150

________________

Brenda Thompkins,

Appellant,

vs.

Condominium "E" Association At Mediterranea, Inc., etc.,

Appellee.

An appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade 

County, Valerie R. Manno Schurr, Judge.

Law Offices of Jennifer S. Carroll, P.A., and Jennifer S. Carroll 

(Jupiter), for appellant.

Esler & Lindie, P.A., Beth G. Lindie, and Jeremy M. Zubkoff (Fort 

Lauderdale), for appellee.

Before SCALES, MILLER, and LOBREE, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.
2

Affirmed.
#### § 778.405 What types of employees are affected.

The type of employment agreement permitted under section 7(f) can be made only with (or by his representatives on behalf of) an employee whose “duties * * * necessitate irregular hours of work.” It is clear that no contract made with an employee who works a regularly scheduled workweek or whose schedule involves alternating fixed workweeks will qualify under this subsection. Even if an employee does in fact work a variable workweek, the question must still be asked whether his duties necessitate irregular hours of work. The subsection is not designed to apply in a situation where the hours of work vary from week to week at the discretion of the employer or the employee, nor to a situation where the employee works an irregular number of hours according to a predetermined schedule. The nature of the employee's duties must be such that neither he nor his employer can either control or anticipate with any degree of certainty the number of hours he must work from week to week. Furthermore, for the reasons set forth in § 778.406, his duties must necessitate significant variations in weekly hours of work both below and above the statutory weekly limit on nonovertime hours. Some examples of the types of employees whose duties may necessitate irregular hours of work would be outside buyers, on-call servicemen, insurance adjusters, newspaper reporters and photographers, propmen, script girls and others engaged in similar work in the motion picture industry, firefighters, troubleshooters and the like. There are some employees in these groups whose hours of work are conditioned by factors beyond the control of their employer or themselves. However, the mere fact that an employee is engaged in one of the jobs just listed, for example, does not mean that his duties necessitate irregular hours. It is always a question of fact whether the particular employee's duties do or do not necessitate irregular hours. Many employees not listed here may qualify. Although office employees would not ordinarily qualify, some office employees whose duties compel them to work variable hours could also be in this category. For example, the confidential secretary of a top executive whose hours of work are irregular and unpredictable might also be compelled by the nature of her duties to work variable and unpredictable hours. This would not ordinarily be true of a stenographer or file clerk, nor would an employee who only rarely or in emergencies is called upon to work outside a regular schedule qualify for this exemption.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 11, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-40868

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOEL RODRIGUEZ-MOCTEZUMA, 

aka Carlos Lopez-Moctezuma,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:04-CR-851-1

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

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Joel Rodriguez-Moctezuma pleaded guilty to being found

unlawfully in the United States after deportation and was

sentenced to 72 months of imprisonment and three years of

supervised release. As a condition of supervised release,

Rodriguez-Moctezuma was ordered to cooperate in the collection

of a DNA sample as directed by his probation officer.

Rodriguez-Moctezuma argues that the district court erred in

ordering him to cooperate in the collection of a DNA sample as a
No. 05-40868

-2-

condition of supervised release. This claim is dismissed for

lack of jurisdiction because it is not ripe for review. See

United States v. Riascos-Cuenu, 428 F.3d 1100, 1101-02 (5th Cir.

2005), petition for cert. filed (Jan. 9, 2006) (No. 05-8662). 

Rodriguez-Moctezuma’s constitutional challenge to 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(b) is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States,

523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). Although Rodriguez-Moctezuma contends

that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided and that a

majority of the Supreme Court would overrule Almendarez-Torres in

light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), we have

repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis that

Almendarez-Torres remains binding. See United States v.

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

S. Ct. 298 (2005). Rodriguez-Moctezuma properly concedes that

his argument is foreclosed in light of Almendarez-Torres and

circuit precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for

further review. 

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED; APPEAL DISMISSED IN PART.
**Exhibit 32.2**

**SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS**

In connection with the Annual Report of Magellan Petroleum Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period endingJune 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Antoine J. Lafargue, Chief Financial and Accounting Officer of the Company, does hereby 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 of1934; and 

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and result of operations of the Company. 

 

Dated: September 28, 2010
# Tube VS-1

# Tube VS-2

# Tube VS-3

# Tube NV-1

# Tube NV-2

# Tube ET-1

# Tube ET-2

# Tube WT-1

# Tube WT-2
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION**

 

In connection with the Annual Report of Summa Industries (the “Company”)on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended August 31, 2004 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, JamesR. Swartwout, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of theCompany, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)           The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

(2)           The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
|   |   /s/ James R. Swartwout |   |
|--------|------------------------------------|--------|
|   | James R. Swartwout                 |
|   | Chief Executive Officer            |
|   | Chief Financial Officer            |
|   | Summa Industries                   |
|   | November 15, 2004                  |

 

A signed originalof this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to SummaIndustries and will be retained by Summa Industries and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 155 (Thursday, August 11, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 49797]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-20422]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

OFFICE OF NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY


Designation of ONDCP SES Performance Review Board Members

AGENCY: Office of National Drug Control Policy.

ACTION: Notice of Designation of ONDCP SES Performance Review Board.

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

    Headings: Designation Pursuant of ONDCP SES Performance Review 
Board Pursuant to 5 CFR 4 30.310.
SUMMARY: The Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy has 
appointed Patrick M. Ward, Robert Denniston, Michele Marx, and Jeffrey 
Teitz as members of the ONDCP SES Performance Review Board (PRB).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Please direct any questions to 
Briggitte LaFontant, Assistant for Personnel, Office of National Drug 
Control Policy, Executive Office of the President, Washington, DC 
20502; (202) 395-6695.

Daniel R. Petersen,
Deputy General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2011-20422 Filed 8-10-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3180-W1-P
#### § 784.118 The exemption is intended for work affected by natural factors.

As indicated by the legislative history, the purpose of the section 13(a)(5) exemption is to exempt from the minimum wage and overtime provisions of the Act employment in those activities in the fishing industry that are controlled or materially affected by natural factors or elements, such as the vicissitudes of the weather, the changeable conditions of the water, the run of the catch, and the perishability of the products obtained (83 Cong. Rec. 7408, 7443; S. Rep. No. 145, p. 33 on H.R. 3935, 87th Cong., first session; *Fleming* v. *Hawkeye Pearl Button Co.,* 113 F. 2d 52; *Walling* v. *Haden,* 153 F. 2d 196, certiorari denied 328 U.S. 866).
§ 471.23 What other provisions apply to this part? ( a ) The regulations in this part implement only the Executive Order, and do not modify or affect the interpretation of any other Department of Labor regulations or policy.
( b ) Each contracting department and agency must cooperate with the Director of OLMS and the Director of the OFCCP, and must provide any information and assistance that they may require, in the performance of their functions under the Executive Order and the regulations in this part.
( c ) ( 1 ) This subpart does not impair or otherwise affect: ( i ) Authority granted by law to a department, agency, or the head thereof; or
( ii ) Functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
( 2 ) This subpart must be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
( d ) Neither the Executive Order nor this part creates any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 103 (Friday, May 26, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 34139]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-13239]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Agricultural Marketing Service

[TB-00-09]


Flue-Cured Tobacco Advisory Committee--Notice of Committee 
Renewal

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of committee renewal.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the Secretary of Agriculture has 
renewed the Flue-Cured Tobacco Advisory Committee for an additional 
period of 2 years.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John P. Duncan III, Deputy 
Administrator, Tobacco Programs, AMS, USDA, 300 12th Street, S.W., Stop 
0280, Room 502 Annex Building, P.O. Box 96456, Washington, D.C. 20090-
6456, (202) 205-0567.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Committee, which reports to the 
Secretary through the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory 
Programs, recommends opening dates and selling schedules for the flue-
cured marketing area which aid the Secretary in making an equitable 
apportionment and assignment of tobacco inspectors. The Committee 
consists of 39 members; 21 producer representatives, 10 warehouse 
representatives, and 8 buyer representatives, representing all segments 
of the flue-cured tobacco industry and meets at the call of the 
Secretary. The Secretary has determined that renewal of this Committee 
is in the public interest.
    To ensure that recommendations of the Committee take into account 
the needs of diverse groups served by the Department, membership should 
include, to the extent practicable, persons with demonstrated ability 
to represent minorities, women, and persons with disabilities.
    This notice is given in compliance with the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.).

    Dated: May 22, 2000.
Paul W. Fiddick,
Assistant Secretary for Administration.
[FR Doc. 00-13239 Filed 5-25-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P