alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 121 (Thursday, June 22, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38841-38842]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-15760]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; Notice 
of Closed Meeting

    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 
meeting.
    The meeting 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 grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Child Health and Human 
Development Initial Review Group Medical Rehabilitation Research 
Subcommittee.
    Date: June 26, 2000.
    Time: 8 AM to 5 PM.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: The Ritz Carlton, Pentagon City, 1250 S. Hayes Street, 
Arlington, VA 22202.

[[Page 38842]]

    Contact Person: Anne Krey, Scientific Review Administrator, 
Division of Scientific Review, National Institute of Child Health 
and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, 6100 Executive 
Blvd., Rm. 5E03, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-6908.
    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.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.209, 
Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program; 93.864, 
Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 
93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research, National 
Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: June 16, 2000.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 00-15760 Filed 6-21-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO. 22-CV-23119-ALTONAGA/Damian

JAMES WATSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

WHY I AM LLC., 

d/b/a Copper Blues Rock Pub & Kitchen

Defendant.

________________________________________/

NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

COMES NOW Plaintiff, JAMES WATSON, by and through the undersigned counsel, 

pursuant to Rule 41(a), Fed. R. Civ. P., hereby gives notice that he voluntarily dismisses this action 

with prejudice against, Defendant, WHY I AM LLC., d/b/a Copper Blues Rock Pub & Kitchen, 

and respectfully requests this Court to terminate the action.

Respectfully submitted on this December 19, 2022. 

By: /s/ J. Courtney Cunningham 

J. Courtney Cunningham, Esq.

FBN: 628166

J. COURTNEY CUNNINGHAM, PLLC

8950 SW 74th Court, Suite 2201

Miami, Florida 33156

T: 305-351-2014

cc@cunninghampllc.com 

legal@cunninghampllc.com

Counsel for Plaintiff

Case 1:22-cv-23119-CMA Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/19/2022 Page 1 of 2
Watson v. Why I Am LLC.

Case No.: 22-cv-23119-CMA

Page 2 of 2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this December 19, 2022, an electronic copy of the foregoing 

document was filed with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notice of 

electronic filing to all parties and Counsel of record. 

By: /s/ J. Courtney Cunningham 

J. Courtney Cunningham, Esq.

FBN: 628166

J. COURTNEY CUNNINGHAM, PLLC

8950 SW 74th Court, Suite 2201

Miami, Florida 33156

T: 305-351-2014

cc@cunninghampllc.com 

legal@cunninghampllc.com

Counsel for Plaintiff

Case 1:22-cv-23119-CMA Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/19/2022 Page 2 of 2
1... See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 2-07-326-CV

TONI SOLANO APPELLANT

V.

CENDANT MORTGAGE APPELLEES

CORPORATION, THE BROWN 

LAW FIRM, STEVEN BROWN, 

INDIVIDUALLY, VANESSA 

MCCAFFREY, JERRY C. 

BODIFORD D/B/A ALPHA 

DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, 

AND JESSE RAY MILES D/B/A 

ALPHA DEVELOPMENT COMPANY

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

FROM THE 348TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

The trial court granted summary judgment for Appellees Cendant

Mortgage Corporation; the Brown Law Firm; Steven Brown, Individually;
2... See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(i) (stating that the brief must contain

argument with appropriate citations to authorities).

2

Vanessa McCaffrey; Jerry C. Bodiford d/b/a Alpha Development Company; and

Jesse Ray Miles d/b/a Alpha Development Company. Appellant Toni Solano

filed this appeal. 

Appellant filed her original brief on August 5, 2008. This court sent

Appellant a letter stating that her brief did not comply with the briefing rules

contained in the rules of appellate procedure. Among other deficiencies, the

brief did not contain a clear and concise argument with appropriate citations to

legal authorities and to the record.2 This court advised Appellant to file an

amended brief that complied with the briefing rules and informed her that

“[f]ailure to do so may result in striking the brief you filed, waiver of

noncomplying points, or dismissal of the appeal.”

Appellant subsequently requested two extensions of time to file an

amended brief, which this court granted. We denied her third motion for an

extension of time and ordered that the appeal would be submitted with

Appellant’s original brief.

We realize that Appellant prepared her briefs without the assistance of

counsel, but pro se litigants are held to the same standards as licensed
3... Wheeler v. Green, 157 S.W.3d 439, 444 (Tex. 2005) (stating that pro

se litigants “are not exempt from the rules of procedure” and suggesting that

“[h]aving two sets of rules—a strict set for attorneys and a lenient set for pro

se parties—might encourage litigants to discard their valuable right to the

advice and assistance of counsel”); Mansfield State Bank v. Cohn, 573 S.W.2d

181, 185 (Tex. 1978) (“Litigants who represent themselves must comply with

the applicable procedural rules, or else they would be given an unfair advantage

over litigants represented by counsel.”).

4... See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(i); Gray v. Nash, 259 S.W.3d 286, 294

(Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2008, pet. denied) (deciding that issues were waived

because of inadequate briefing).

3

attorneys with respect to following the applicable rules of procedure.3

Accordingly, we overrule all of Appellant’s issues as inadequately briefed.4 We

also deny Appellant’s pending motion for relief.

Having overruled Appellant’s issues, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: DAUPHINOT, LIVINGSTON, and MCCOY, JJ.

DELIVERED: July 16, 2009
040P15

#### State v. Napoleon Junior Rankins

1. Def’s *Pro Se*PWC to Review Order of Superior Court of Guilford County

1. Dismissed

2. Defs *Pro Se*Motion to Proceed *In Forma Pauperis*

2. Allowed

3. Defs *Pro Se*Motion to Appoint Counsel

3. Dismissed as Moot
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 120 (Wednesday, June 21, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 38558]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-15671]


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

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION


Performance Review Board

AGENCY: Federal Maritime Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the names of the members of the 
Performance Review Board.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Harriette H. Charbonneau, Director of 
Human Resources, Federal Maritime Commission, 800 North Capitol Street, 
NW., Washington, DC 20573.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 4314(c) (1) through (5) of title 5, 
U.S.C., requires each agency to establish, in accordance with 
regulations prescribed by the Office of Personnel Management, one or 
more performance review boards. The board shall review and evaluate the 
initial appraisal of a senior executive's performance by the 
supervisor, along with any recommendations to the appointing authority 
relative to the performance of the senior executive.

Harold J. Creel, Jr.,
Chairman.

The Members of the Performance Review Board Are

1. Joseph E. Brennan, Commissioner
2. Antony M. Merck, Commissioner
3. John A. Moran, Commissioner
4. Delmond J.H. Won, Commissioner
5. Norman D. Kline, Chief Administrative Law Judge
6. Frederick M. Dolan, Jr., Administrative Law Judge
7. Thomas Panebianco, General Counsel
8. Bryant L. VanBrakle, Secretary
9. Bruce A. Dombrowski, Executive Director
10. Vern W. Hill, Director, Bureau of Enforcement
11. Sandra L. Kusumoto, Director, Bureau of Consumer Complaints and 
Licensing
12. Florence A. Carr, Deputy Executive Director
13. Austin L. Schmitt, Director, Bureau of Trade Analysis

[FR Doc. 00-15671 Filed 6-20-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-P
Ex. 10.2


FIRST AMENDMENT TO

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

 

THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”) is made and entered into as of August 27, 2019, with an effective date of July 1, 2019, by and between Summer Energy Holdings, Inc., a Nevada corporation (“Employer”), and Travis Andrews (“Employee”). 

RECITALS

A. Employer and Employee are parties to that certain Employment Agreement dated as of July 1, 2017 (the “Employment Agreement”).  Unless otherwise indicated, all capitalized terms herein shall have the meanings assigned to them in the Employment Agreement. 

 

B.Pursuant to Section 9 of the Employment Agreement, Employer and Employee desire to amend the Employment Agreement pursuant to the terms and conditions of this Amendment.   

  

AGREEMENT

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants and conditions set forth herein, and for other good and valuable consideration, Employer and Employee hereby agree as follows: 

1.Section 1(a) of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended by deleting such section in its entirety and replacing it as follows: 

Term.  Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, Employer agrees to employ Employee, and Employee agrees to be employed by Employer, for a term of two (2) years, commencing on July 1, 2019.    

2.Exhibit A to the Employment Agreement is hereby amended by deleting the first bullet point in section 5 thereof in its entirety and replacing it as follows:   

oEmployee shall be granted an option to purchase up to 150,000 shares of Employer’s common stock (the “Common Stock”) which option vests as follows: (i) as to the first 75,000 shares of Common Stock, on July 1, 2020 and, (ii) as to the second 75,000 shares of Common Stock, on June 30, 2021, with an exercise price equal to $1.50 per share, unless the price per share of Common Stock as reported on the OTC Markets on the date such option is granted is greater than $1.50, in which case the exercise price shall be equal to the price per share quoted on the OTC Markets on the date such option is granted, all pursuant and subject to the terms of a Stock Option Grant Agreement by and between Employer and Employee.  

 

3.Exhibit A to the Employment Agreement is hereby amended by adding the following states to the definition of “Restricted Territory” as described therein:  

Ohio 

Illinois 

Pennsylvania

New Hampshire

Massachusetts

Connecticut 

Rhode Island


4848-9846-4928




4.All other provisions of the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 

[Signature page follows]


2

4848-9846-4928




 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this First Amendment to Employment Agreement as of the date set forth above.

 

EMPLOYER:EMPLOYEE: 

 

SUMMER ENERGY HOLDINGS, INC.

a Nevada corporation/s/ Travis Andrews 

Travis Andrews 

By: /s/ Neil Leibman__________

Name: Neil Leibman

Title: President and CEO


3

4848-9846-4928
Produced and published at U.S. taxpayer expense

Return on Investment (ROI) 

Economic Opportunity

Office of Research and Evaluation January 2024 

Economic Opportunity Programs 

Provide a Lucrative Return on Investment. Growing economic opportunity is critical to how AmeriCorps ‘gets 

things done for America.’ AmeriCorps offers transformative resources, 

including funding and AmeriCorps members, to improve the

economic well-being and security of underserved individuals through 

national service. 

AmeriCorps and its partners focused on economic opportunity help 

generate financial and employment opportunity by teaching digital 

skills and financial literacy, sector and industry-based skills, growing 

critical thinking and leadership skills, and more. AmeriCorps 

members engage communities and share valuable resources to 

support economic opportunity across the country.

Return on investment (ROI) analyses help quantify a program’s 

benefits relative to its costs, assessing program performance and 

demonstrating value to stakeholders, while building the larger 

evidence base. Calculating ROI for AmeriCorps programs can entail

looking at benefits (relative to costs) experienced by: 

• AmeriCorps members, such as increases in their wages and 

educational attainment. 

• Government, such as increases in tax revenue and

programmatic savings. 

• Society, such as improvements in employability and 

socioeconomic mobility.

Economic opportunity programs grow individual and community 

potential. These programs not only demonstrate positive economic 

outcomes, but they also generate value from the funding invested in these programs. In terms of ROI:

• Community Technology Empowerment Project generates a return of $2.95 to $34.26 per funder dollar invested.

• Green City Force generates a return of $0.69 to $7.60 per funder dollar invested.

• Habitat for Humanity AmeriCorps generates a return of $0.62 to $2.61 per funder dollar invested.

• YouthBuild AmeriCorps generates a return of $-0.40 to $9.58 per funder dollar invested.

About the Office of Research and Evaluation

The AmeriCorps Office of Research and Evaluation assists AmeriCorps and its partners in collecting, analyzing, and disseminating 

data and insights about AmeriCorps programs and civic life in America.

About AmeriCorps

AmeriCorps, the federal agency for national service and volunteerism, provides opportunities for Americans to serve their country

domestically, address the nation’s most pressing challenges, improve lives and communities, and strengthen civic engagement. Each 

year, the agency places more than 200,000 AmeriCorps members and AmeriCorps Seniors volunteers in intensive service roles; and 

empowers millions more to serve as long-term, short-term, or one-time volunteers. Learn more at AmeriCorps.gov.
#### § 109-40.306-3 Distribution.

Each agency receiving rate tenders shall promptly submit one signed copy to the Transportation and Public Utilities Service (WIT), General Services Administration, Washington, DC 20407. Also, two copies (including at least one signed copy) shall be promptly submitted to the General Services Administration (TA), Chester A. Arthur Building, Washington, DC 20406.
#### § 105-72.505 Cost and price analysis.

Some form of cost or price analysis shall be made and documented in the procurement files in connection with every procurement action. Price analysis may be accomplished in various ways, including the comparison of price quotations submitted, market prices and similar indicia, together with discounts. Cost analysis is the review and evaluation of each element of cost to determine reasonableness, allocability and allowability.
#### Commonwealth v. St. Clair.

December, 1844.

Criminal Practice—Voluntary Prosecutor—Costs.—In a prosecution for a misdemeanour at the instance of a voluntary prosecutor, the defendant files a plea in abatement, that one of the grand jurors who found the indictment was not a freeholder; and the issue made up on that plea is found for the defendant, and the indictment quashed. HEM), the court should give judgment for the costs against the prosecutor.

This was an indictment found by the grand jury empaneled at the May term of the superior court for the county of Bed-ford, against Ephraim St. Clair, for destroying a quantity of tobacco, the property of William Hanks. And Hanks was endorsed as the prosecutor.

The defendant appeared and filed a plea in abatement, that John Fields, one of the grand jurors who found the indictment, was not a freeholder. Issue being joined upon this plea, the attorney for the commonwealth and the defendant agreed a statement of facts in lieu of a special verdict; upon which the court gave judgment for the defendant, that the indictment be quashed, and that the defendant be discharged from the prosecution.

After the court had given judgment for the defendant, he by his counsel moved for a judgment for costs against Hanks the prosecutor, pursuant to the 6th section of the act of February 17th, 1823, Sessions Acts, p. 12. But the court doubting whether that act applied to such *a case as the present, with the consent of the defendant, adjourned to the general court the following questions: 1st. “Whether the court, before which a prosecution is pending for a misdemeanour, hath the power, by virtue of the above mentioned act, to enter up judgment for costs against a voluntary prosecutor in a case, in which the defendant is discharged upon a plea in abatement to the grand jury?’ ’

2d. “ What judgment ought to be given on the defendant’s motion for costs in this case?”

By the court.

The court is unanimously of opinion, and doth decide, that judgment ought to be rendered for the defendant against the prosecutor, for the costs in this case—which is ordered to be certified &c.
I

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 742

To amend title II of the Social Security Act to eliminate the provision

that reduces primary insurance amounts for individuals receiving pensions from noncovered employment.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 11, 1999

Mr. SANDLIN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend title II of the Social Security Act to eliminate

the provision that reduces primary insurance amounts

for individuals receiving pensions from noncovered employment.

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 ‘‘Social Security Bene5 fits Restoration Act of 1999’’.
2

•HR 742 IH

1 SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF PROVISION THAT REDUCES PRI2 MARY INSURANCE AMOUNTS FOR INDIVID3 UALS RECEIVING PENSIONS FROM NON4 COVERED EMPLOYMENT.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 215(a) of the Social Secu6 rity Act (42 U.S.C. 415(a)) is amended by striking para7 graph (7).

8 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—

9 (1) Section 215(d) of such Act (42 U.S.C.

10 415(d)) is amended by striking paragraph (3).

11 (2) Section 215(f) of such Act (42 U.S.C.

12 415(f)) is amended by striking paragraph (9).

13 (3) Subsections (e)(2) and (f)(3) of section 202

14 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 402(e)(2), (f)(3)) are each

15 amended by striking ‘‘section 215(f)(5), 215(f)(6),

16 or 215(f)(9)(B)’’ each place it appears and inserting

17 ‘‘paragraph (5) or (6) of section 215(f)’’.

18 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

19 The amendments made by this Act shall apply with

20 respect to benefits payable for months after December

21 1999, and the Commissioner of Social Security shall re22 compute primary insurance amounts (notwithstanding

23 section 215(f) of the Social Security Act) to the extent

24 necessary to carry out such amendments.

Æ
#### § 105-67.100 Scope of subpart.

This subpart prescribes policies and procedures governing the debarment or suspension of contractors from purchases of Federal personal property (see FPMR part 101-45).

[51 FR 13500, Apr. 21, 1986]
§ 105-60.500 Final response procedures and rules. ( a ) Once GSA determines that it shall grant a request in full or in part, the requester shall be notified of the decision in writing as well. GSA shall also inform the requester of any fees charged under § 105-60.804 of this part and shall disclose the requested records to the requester promptly upon payment of any applicable fees. The agency shall inform the requester of the availability of its FOIA Public Liaison to offer assistance.
( b ) If GSA makes an adverse determination on any part of the FOIA request, it shall notify the requester of that determination in writing. Adverse determinations, or denials of requests, include determinations that: ( 1 ) The requested record is exempt from disclosure, in whole or in part;
( 2 ) The FOIA request does not reasonably describe the records sought;
( 3 ) The information requested is not subject to FOIA;
( 4 ) The requested record does not exist, cannot be located, or has been destroyed; or
( 5 ) The requested record is not readily reproducible in the form or format sought by the requester.
( c ) Records disclosed in part in response to a FOIA request shall be marked clearly to show the exemption under which the applicable portions of the responsive records were redacted unless doing so would harm an interest protected by an applicable exemption.
( d ) Adverse determinations also include denials involving fee waiver requests, denials for expedited processing, and the administrative closure of FOIA requests due to nonpayment of search and review fees for processing the FOIA request.
( e ) Any adverse determination of a FOIA request, in full or in part, shall be signed by the Chief FOIA Officer or his or her designee and shall include: ( 1 ) The name and title or position of the person responsible for the adverse determination;
( 2 ) A brief statement of the reasons for the adverse determination, including any FOIA exemption that is the basis for GSA's decision;
( 3 ) An estimate of the volume of any records or information withheld, such as the number of pages or some other reasonable form of estimation, although such an estimate is not required if the volume is otherwise indicated by deletions marked on records that are disclosed in part or if providing an estimate would harm an interest protected by an applicable exemption; and
( 4 ) A statement that the denial may be appealed under subpart I of this part, and a description of the appeal requirements.
( 5 ) A statement notifying the requester of the assistance available from the agency's FOIA Public Liaison and the dispute resolution services offered by OGIS.
( f ) Use of record exclusions pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552(c): ( 1 ) In the event that GSA identifies records that may be subject to exclusion from the requirements of the FOIA pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552(c), GSA shall confer with Department of Justice, Office of Information Policy (OIP), to obtain approval to apply the exclusion.
( 2 ) If GSA invokes an exclusion, it shall maintain an administrative record of the process of invocation and approval of the exclusion by OIP.
#### § 102-74.120 Is a prospectus required to be submitted before emergency alterations can be performed?

No. A prospectus does not need to be submitted before emergency alterations are performed, but GSA must submit a prospectus as soon as possible after the emergency. Federal agencies must immediately alter a building if the alteration protects people, buildings, or equipment, saves lives, and/or avoids further property damage. Federal agencies can take these actions in an emergency before GSA submits a prospectus on the alterations to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works and the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.