alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### BILL OF COSTS

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, FOURTEENTH DISTRICT, AT HOUSTON

No. 14

- 14

- 00769

- CV

In the Matter of the Marriage of Daniel Banda and Lina Maria Martinez

(No. 2013

- 68191 IN 246TH DISTR ICT COURT OF HARRIS COUNTY)

TYPE OF FEE CHARGES PAID/D UE STATUS PAID BY

MT FEE

STATEWIDE EFILING

FILING $10.00

$20.00
$175.00 01/30/2015

10/20/2014

10/20/2014 E

- PAID

E

- PAID

E

- PAID ANT

ANT

ANT

The costs incurred on appeal to the Fourteenth Court of Appeals Housto n, Texas

are $205.00

.

Court costs in this c ause shall be paid as per the Judgment issued by this Court.

I, CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE, CLERK OF THE FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF TEXAS, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true and correct copy of the cost bill of THE COURT O F APPEALS FOR THE FOURTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS, showing the charges and payments, in the above numbered and styled cause, as the same appears of record in this office.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, witness my hand and the Seal of the COURT
OF APPEALS for the Fo ur teenth District of Texas, February 13, 2015

.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**
 
 **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 Annual Report of Longview Fibre Company (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended October 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Form 10-K"), I, L. J. McLaughlin, Sr. Vice President-Finance, Secretary and Treasurer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
 
 (1) The Form 10-K fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
 
 (2) The information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  Dated:  January 13, 2005
 
 
 **L. J. MCLAUGHLIN**
 L. J. MCLAUGHLIN
 Sr. Vice President-Finance,
 Secretary and Treasurer
§ 1917.122 Employee exits. ( a ) Employee exits shall be clearly marked.
( b ) If an employee exit is not visible from employees' work stations, directional signs indicating routes to the exit shall be posted.
( c ) Exits shall be readily accessible and sufficient in number to provide employees with a convenient means of escape in emergencies. A clear passage to the exit shall be maintained.
( d ) The minimum width of any employee exit shall be 28 inches (71.12 cm).
[48 FR 30909, July 5, 1983, as amended at 65 FR 40942, June 30, 2000]
EXHIBIT 11
COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE

LILLY INDUSTRIES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
(In thousands, except per share data)

                                          Year Ended November 30
                                      1996         1995        1994
Primary:
  Average shares outstanding - - 
    Note A                            22,600       22,677      22,660

  Net Income                         $18,776      $20,264     $23,302
  Net Income per common share - -
    Note A                             $0.83        $0.89       $1.03
                                     =======      =======     =======

  Average shares outstanding - -
    Note A                            22,600       22,677      22,660
  Dilutive stock options based
     on treasury stock method
     using average market
     price - - Note A                    500          409         571
                                     -------      -------     -------
                                      23,100       23,086      23,231
                                     =======      =======     =======

  Net Income                         $18,776      $20,264     $23,302
  Net Income per common
     and common equivalent
     share - - Note A                  $0.81        $0.88       $1.00
                                     =======      =======     =======
Fully diluted:
  Average shares outstanding - -
    Note A                            22,600       22,677      22,660
  Dilutive stock options based
     on treasury stock method
     using  the higher of year end,
     quarter end or average market
     price - - Note A                    600          423         590
                                     -------      -------     -------
                                      23,200       23,100      23,250
                                     =======      =======     =======

  Net Income                         $18,776      $20,264     $23,302
  Net Income per common
     and common equivalent
     share - - Note A                   $.81        $0.88       $1.00
                                     =======      =======     =======

Note A - - Amounts  have been  adjusted  to  recognize  the  effect of all stock
splits and stock dividends through November 30, 1996.
§ 4041.47 PBGC determination of plan sufficiency/insufficiency. ( a ) *General.* Upon receipt of participant and benefit information filed pursuant to § 4041.45 (b)(1) or (c), the PBGC will determine the degree to which the plan is sufficient and notify the plan administrator in writing of its determination in accordance with paragraph (b) or (c) of this section.
( b ) *Insufficiency for guaranteed benefits.* If the PBGC finds that it is unable to determine that a plan is sufficient for guaranteed benefits, it will issue a “notice of inability to determine sufficiency” notifying the plan administrator of this finding and advising the plan administrator that— ( 1 ) The plan administrator must continue to administer the plan under the restrictions imposed by § 4041.42; and
( 2 ) The termination will be completed under section 4042 of ERISA.
( c ) *Sufficiency for guaranteed benefits or benefit liabilities.* If the PBGC determines that a plan is sufficient for guaranteed benefits but not for benefit liabilities or is sufficient for benefit liabilities, the PBGC will issue to the plan administrator a distribution notice advising the plan administrator— ( 1 ) To issue notices of benefit distribution in accordance with § 4041.48;
( 2 ) To close out the plan in accordance with § 4041.50;
( 3 ) To file a timely post-distribution certification with the PBGC in accordance with § 4041.50(b); and
( 4 ) That either the plan administrator or the contributing sponsor must preserve and maintain plan records in accordance with § 4041.5.
( d ) *Alternative treatment of majority owner's benefit.* A majority owner may elect to forgo receipt of all or part of his or her plan benefits in connection with a distress termination. Any such alternative treatment— ( 1 ) Is valid only if the conditions in § 4041.21(b)(2) ( i ) through ( iv ) are met (except that, in the case of a plan that does not distribute assets pursuant to § 4041.50, the majority owner may make the election and the spouse may consent any time on or after the date of issuance of the first notice of intent to terminate); and—
( 2 ) Is subject to the PBGC's approval if the election— ( i ) Is made after the termination date; and
( ii ) Would result in the PBGC determining that the plan is sufficient for guaranteed benefits under paragraph (c).
Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Please submit the attached Denial Letter to JetBlue Airways Corporation (Docket No. FAA-2013-0764). If granted, that exemption would allow JetBlue to delay implementing 14 CFR part 117 until the period between January 7, 2014 and January 31, 2014.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

DAVID CONERLY, AKA David Clayton 

Conerly,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 18-10454

D.C. No. 4:17-cr-00578-JSW-1

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Jeffrey S. White, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted January 8, 2020**

Before: CALLAHAN, NGUYEN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. 

David Conerly appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 

108-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a felon 

in possession of a firearm and ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

JAN 14 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 18-10454 

Conerly contends that the district court erred by applying a four-level 

enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) for using or possessing a firearm in 

connection with another felony offense. We review the district court’s 

interpretation of the Guidelines de novo, its factual findings for clear error, and the 

court’s application of the Guidelines to the facts for abuse of discretion. See 

United States v. Gasca-Ruiz, 852 F.3d 1167, 1170 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc).

The district court’s finding that Conerly possessed cocaine base with the 

intent to sell was not “illogical, implausible, or without support in inferences that 

may be drawn from the facts in the record.” United States v. Hinkson, 585 F.3d 

1247, 1263 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc). The totality of the evidence in the record 

supports the district court’s finding that Conerly’s possession of the firearm

potentially emboldened his efforts to sell crack cocaine, see United States v.

Polanco, 93 F.3d 555, 567 (9th Cir. 1996), and the court did not abuse its 

discretion by applying the section 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) enhancement, see Gasca-Ruiz, 

852 F.3d at 1170. 

AFFIRMED.
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 85 (Wednesday, May 2, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26023-26024]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-10510]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

[Docket No. DHS-2012-0016]

President's National Security Telecommunications Advisory 
Committee; Correction

AGENCY: National Protection and Programs Directorate, DHS.

[[Page 26024]]

ACTION: Committee Management; Notice of Partially Closed Federal 
Advisory Committee Meeting; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Homeland Security published a document in 
the Federal Register of April 25, 2012, concerning the President's 
National Security Telecommunications Advisory Committee (NSTAC) 
meeting. The document contained incorrect information regarding the 
time and status of the meeting sessions.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Helen Jackson, 703-235-4957.

Correction

    In the Federal Register of April 25, 2012, in FR Doc 2012-9979, on 
page 24728, in the third column, correct the ``Dates'' caption to read:

DATES: The NSTAC will meet in a closed session on Tuesday, May 15, 
2012, from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. and in an open session on Tuesday, May 15, 
2012, from 1:45 p.m. to 5:10 p.m.
    Additionally, on page 24729, in the second column, correct the 
first complete sentence to read: ``Additionally, the NSTAC will receive 
a briefing on the Government's current initiatives with respect to the 
National Public Safety Broadband Network.''

    Dated: April 26, 2012.
Arnella Terrell,
Federal Register Certification Official.
[FR Doc. 2012-10510 Filed 5-1-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
```
## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02 - 11 - 00280 - CV

ANNABELLE VEVERKA APPELLANT
V. JUSTIN DENAPOLI APPELLEE

---------- FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF TARRANT COUNTY

---------- 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1

---------- The trial court signed a final order granting Appellee Justin Denapoli’s motion for summary judgment on December 10, 201 0

. Appellant Annabelle Veverka timely filed a motion fo r new trial on January 7, 2011, which extend ed the deadline to file the notice o f appeal until ninety days after December 10, 201 0 , s ee Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(a), but she did not file the notice of appeal until July 29, 2011 , over four months beyond the expiration of the ninety

- day period

.

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2

To the extent that Veverka attempts to appeal from the June 29, 2011 order denying her motion for new trial, the trial court ’s plenary power expired after 105 days from the date the trial court signed the order granting Denapoli’s motion for
summary judgment ; therefore, the order denying Veverka’s motion for new trial is void

. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 329 b (c), (e)

. On August 12, 2011, we notified Veverka of our concern that we lack jurisdiction over this appeal because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. We informed Veverka th at the appeal may be dismissed for want of jurisdiction unless she or any party desir ing to continue the appeal filed with the court on or before August 22, 2011, a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal. Veverka filed a motion to retain the a ppeal, which we construe as her response, but it does not show grounds for continuing the appeal. An untimely notice of appeal fails to vest jurisdiction in the court of appeals. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.1; Verburgt v. Dorner , 959 S.W.2d 615, 616

– 17 (Tex. 1997). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f).

PER CURIAM
PANEL: MEIER, J.; LIVINGSTON, C.J.; and GABRIEL, J.
DELIVERED: September 29 , 2011
#### § 780.902 Legislative history of exemption.

Since the language of section 13(b)(16) and its predecessor, section 13(a)(22) is identical, the legislative history of former section 13(a)(22) still retains its pertinency and vitality. The former section 13(a)(22) was added to the Act by the Fair Labor Standards Amendments of 1961. The original provision in the House-passed bill was in the form of an amendment to the Act's definition of agriculture. It would have altered the effect of holdings of the courts that operations such as those described in the amendment are not within the agriculture exemption provided by section 13(a)(6) when performed by employees of persons other than the farmer. (*Chapman* v. *Durkin,* 214 F. 2d 360, certiorari denied 348 U.S. 897; *Fort Mason Fruit Co.* v. *Durkin,* 214 F. 2d 363, certiorari denied, 348 U.S. 897.) The amendment was offered to exempt operations which, in the sponsor's view, were meant to be exempt under the original Act. (See 107 Cong. Rec. (daily ed.) p. 4523.) The Conference Committee, in changing the provision to make it a separate exemption made it clear that is was “not intended by the committee of conference to change by this exemption (for the described transportation employees) * * * the application of the Act to any other employees. Nor is it intended that there be any implication of disagreement by the conference committee with the principles and tests governing the application of the present agricultural exemption as enunciated by the courts.” (H. Rept. No. 327, 87th Cong., first session, p. 18.)
§ 471.14 What sanctions and penalties may be imposed for noncompliance, and what procedures will the Department follow in imposing such sanctions and penalties? ( a ) After a final decision on the merits has issued and before imposing the sanctions and penalties described in paragraph (d) of this section, the Director of OLMS will consult with the affected contracting agencies, and provide the heads of those agencies the opportunity to respond and provide written objections.
( b ) If the contracting agency provides written objections, those objections must include a complete statement of reasons for the objections, which must include a finding that, as applicable, the completion of the contract, or further contracts or extensions or modifications of existing contracts, is essential to the agency's mission.
( c ) The sanctions and penalties described in this section will not be imposed if: ( 1 ) The head of the contracting agency, or his or her designee, continues to object to the imposition of such sanctions and penalties, or
( 2 ) The contractor has not been given an opportunity for a hearing.
( d ) In enforcing the Executive Order and this part, the Director of OLMS may take any of the following actions: ( 1 ) Direct a contracting agency to cancel, terminate, suspend, or cause to be canceled, terminated or suspended, any contract or any portions thereof, for failure to comply with its contractual provisions required by Section 7(a) of the Executive Order and the regulations in this part. Contracts may be canceled, terminated, or suspended absolutely, or continuance of contracts may be conditioned upon compliance.
( 2 ) Issue an order of debarment under Section 7(b) of the Executive Order providing that one or more contracting agencies must refrain from entering into further contracts, or extensions or other modification of existing contracts, with any non-complying contractor.
( 3 ) Issue an order of debarment under Section 7(b) of the Executive Order providing that no contracting agency may enter into a contract with any non-complying subcontractor.
( e ) Whenever the Director of OLMS exercises the authority in this section, the contracting agency must report the actions it has taken to the Director of OLMS within such time as the Director of OLMS will specify.
( f ) Periodically, the Director of OLMS will publish and distribute to all executive agencies a list of the names of contractors and subcontractors that have, in the judgment of the Director of OLMS, failed to comply with the provisions of the Executive Order and this part, or of related rules, regulations, and orders of the Secretary of Labor, and as a result have been declared ineligible for future contracts under the Executive Order and the regulations in this part.
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT




Board of Directors and Stockholders of
LCS Industries, Inc.
Clifton, New Jersey

We consent to the  incorporation  by reference in  Registration  Statements  No.
33-12508,  No. 33- 122552,  No.  33-83058,  No. 33-90036 and No. 33-59935 of LCS
Industries,  Inc. on Forms S-8,  S-3,  S-8,  S-8 and S-3,  respectively,  of our
report dated  November 4, 1997,  November  28, 1997 as to Note 13,  appearing in
this  Annual  Report on Form 10-K of LCS  Industries,  Inc.  for the year  ended
September 30, 1997.



/s/Deloitte & Touche LLP
------------------------
Deloitte & Touche LLP
Parsippany, New Jersey


December 16, 1997
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 103 (Friday, May 26, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 34157]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-13229]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP00-287-000]


Great Lakes Gas Transmission Limited Partnership and Ocean Energy 
Resources, Inc.; Notice of Petition for Declaratory Order

May 22, 2000.
    Take notice that on May 18, 2000, Great Lakes Gas Transmission 
Limited Partnership (Great Lakes) and Ocean Energy Resources, Inc. 
(Ocean) (jointly the parties) pursuant to Rule 207 of the Rules of 
Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.207, of the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, tendered for filing a Request for Declaratory 
order concerning application of Great Lakes' right of First Refusal 
procedures.
    The parties jointly request that the Commission declare whether the 
``primary term'' of the 6-19-98 FT254 shall be determined by reference 
to the contract date stated in Section 1 and the effective date stated 
in Section 7, or by reference to the term of service stated in Section 
6.
    Great Lakes and Ocean ask the Commission to identify the ``primary 
terms'' of Service Agreement FT254, for purposes of determining whether 
Section 16(a) or 16(b) of the Right of First Refusal procedures of 
Great Lakes' FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, should 
apply. The parties respectfully request the Commission to issue a final 
Declaratory Order prior to the July 31, 2000 closing date of the Open 
Season for the 6-19-98 FTS254 capacity now posted on Great Lakes' 
Electronic Bulletin Board, so that neither Ocean nor any bidder may be 
harmed by the outcome of these proceedings.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's 
Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed on or 
before June 19, 2000. Protests will be considered by the Commission in 
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to 
make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to 
become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing 
are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection 
in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at 
http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for 
assistance).

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-13229 Filed 5-25-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE>     5

<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                            5966
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  5966
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    5966
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             3665
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          3468
<OTHER-SE>                                       (1167)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      5966
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    27699
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (27699)
<DISCONTINUED>                                  123006
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     95307
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.05


</TABLE>