alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

No. 08-0165

IN RE  OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus

**ORDERED:**

1.On February 29, 2008, the Court issued an order granting in part relator’s emergency motion for temporary relief, filed February 29, 2008.  The Court stayed the Temporary Restraining Order and Order Setting Hearing for Temporary Orders signed February 25, 2008, in Cause No. 05-20254, styled *In the Matter of Office of the Guardian Ad Litem and Office of the Attorney General of Texas and in the interest of Minor Children*, in the 301st District Court of Dallas County, Texas.  The stay shall remain in effect pending further order of this Court.

2.The Court now denies the remainder of relator’s emergency motion for temporary relief filed February 29, 2008.

3.The petition for writ of mandamus remains pending before this Court.

Done at the City of Austin, this March 20, 2008.

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

Supreme Court of Texas

By Claudia Jenks, Chief Deputy Clerk
January 31, 2012

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

BALLARD EXPLORATION COMPANY, INC. AND GORDY OIL COMPANY, 

Appellants

NO. 14-11-00782-CV V.

MRA NORTHEAST, L.P. AND FRM/MRA HOLDINGS #1, LTD., Appellees

____________________

Today the Court heard appellant=s motion to dismiss the appeal from the judgment 

signed by the court below on August 5, 2011. Having considered the motion and found it 

meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED.

We further order that each party shall pay its costs incurred by reason of this 

appeal.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

We further order the mandate be issued immediately.
Order entered June 16, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-00367-CV

PETER B. CASEY, Appellant

V.

FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Appellee

On Appeal from the 219th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 219-02664-2014

ORDER

We GRANT appellant’s first opposed motion for extension of time to file brief and 

ORDER the brief tendered to the Clerk of the Court June 14, 2015 filed as of the date of this 

order.

/s/ CRAIG STODDART 

JUSTICE
§ 64.1204 Private entity submissions of robocall violations. ( a ) Any private entity may submit to the Enforcement Bureau information related to a call made or a text message sent that the private entity has reason to believe was in violation of § 64.1200(a) or 47 U.S.C. 227(b).
( b ) For the purposes of this section, the term “private entity” shall mean any entity other than a natural individual person or a public entity.
[86 FR 52843, Sept. 23, 2021, as amended at 87 FR 67827, Nov. 10, 2022]
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles Anthony FANTOZZI, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 03-41485.

Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

March 17, 2004.

James Lee Turner, Assistant US Attorney, US Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Charles Anthony Fantozzi, Cumberland, MD, pro se.

Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.*

Charles Anthony Fantozzi, federal prisoner # 45227-083, requests a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion as time-barred. He argues that the district court erred in using the date of the finality of his conviction as the starting date for the one-year time limit for filing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, rather than the later date on which he discovered that his trial counsel had failed to perfect his appeal. He seeks a COA to present his claim that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his trial counsel failed to perfect his direct appeal, among other claims.

However, the record shows that on March 15, 2002, Fantozzi filed a motion to proceed *in forma pauperis*(IFP) on appeal following the entry of the judgment of conviction and within the 10-day time limit for filing a notice of appeal, which clearly evinced his intent to file a direct appeal. *See Mosley v. Cozby,*813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir.1987). Consequently, Fantozzi’s motion to proceed IFP should *74be construed as a timely notice of direct appeal from the judgment of conviction, and we will not consider the arguments raised in Fantozzi’s COA application because “[a] motion to vacate sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 will not be entertained during the pendency of a direct appeal, inasmuch as the disposition of the appeal may render the motion moot.” *Welsh v. United States,*404 F.2d 333, 333 (5th Cir. 1968), *abrogated on other grounds, United States v. Ortega,*859 F.2d 327, 334 (5th Cir.1988).

Accordingly, we grant COA and vacate the district court’s order denying 28 U.S.C. § 2255 relief and judgment entered on September 24, 2003, and its order denying Fantozzi’s motion for reconsideration entered on October 31, 2003. On remand, the district court is instructed to (1) dismiss Fantozzi’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion without prejudice; (2) construe Fantozzi’s motion for leave to proceed IFP on appeal filed on March 15, 2002, as a timely notice of direct appeal of its judgment entered on March 14, 2002; and (3) direct its clerk to file Fantozzi’s motion for leave to proceed IFP on appeal filed on March 15, 2002, as a notice of direct appeal from the district court’s judgment entered on March 14, 2002.

APPLICATION FOR COA GRANTED; VACATED AND REMANDED.

*

 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.
792 A.2d 405

#### IN THE MATTER OF SHIRLEY WATERS, A/K/A SHIRLEY WATERS-CATO, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW.

March 11, 2002.

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 00-224, concluding that SHIRLEY WATERS, a/k/a SHIRLEY WATERS-CATO, of EAST ORANGE, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1977, and who has been suspended from the practice of law since May 1,1995, pursuant to Orders of the Court filed April 5, 1995, October 5, 1995, October 22, 1997, and April 7, 1999, should be suspended from the practice of law for a further period of six months for violating *Rule*1:20-20 (failure to inform client of suspension and to advise client to seek legal advice elsewhere), *RPC*1.4(a) (failure to communicate), *RPC*8.1(b) (failure to cooperate with disciplinary authorities), and *RPC*8.4(c) (misrepresentation);

And the Disciplinary Review Board further having concluded that prior to reinstatement to practice, respondent should be required to demonstrate her fitness to practice law and complete twelve hours of courses in professional responsibility, and that on reinstatement, respondent should be required to practice under supervision;

And respondent having been ordered to show cause why she should not be disbarred or otherwise disciplined;

And good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that SHIRLEY WATERS, a/k/a SHIRLEY WATERS-CATO, is suspended fi-om the practice of law for a period of six months and until the further Order of the Court, effective immediately; and it is further

ORDERED that prior to reinstatement to practice, respondent shall complete twelve hours of courses in professional responsibili*73ty offered by the Institute for Continuing Legal Education or otherwise approved by the Office of Attorney Ethics and shall provide the Office of Attorney Ethics with proof of her satisfactory completion thereof; and it is further

ORDERED that prior to reinstatement to practice, respondent shall submit proof of her fitness to practice law as attested to by a mental health professional approved by the Office of Attorney Ethics; and it is further

ORDERED that on reinstatement .to practice, respondent shall practice law under the supervision of a practicing attorney approved by the Office of Attorney Ethics and until the further Order of the Court; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent shall comply with the conditions set forth in the Orders of the Court filed on April 5, 1995, October 5, 1995, October 22, 1997, and April 7, 1999; and it is further

ORDERED that the entire record of this matter be made a permanent part of respondent’s file as an attorney at law of this State; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent continue to be restrained and enjoined from practicing law during the period of suspension and that respondent continue to comply with *Rule*1:20-20; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent reimburse the Disciplinary Oversight Committee for appropriate administrative costs incurred in the prosecution of this matter.
No. 11-9676.

#### In re Jones.

Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.
800 Independence Ave., S.W. Washington, DC 20591

May 2, 2016

Mr. David Rude

772 Cedar Creek Drive

Wendell

, NC 27591

Dear Mr. Rude :

This is in response to your letter dated December 30

, 2015

, posted to the public docket (No

. FAA

- 2015

- 8699 ) petitioning the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to initiate

rulema king to amend § 1.1 of Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)

. In your petition, you request that the definition of light

- sport aircraft contained in § 1.1 be

amended to permit an aircraft to be defined as a light

- sport aircraft if that aircraft me t the parameters of the definition upon its original certification, was later modified to a configuration that did not meet the definition , and was subsequently returned to its original configuration . The current definition of light

- sport aircraft specifie s that the aircraft must continue to meet the parameters of the definition since its original

certification.

In accordance with 14 CFR § 11.73 , the FAA must use the following criteria when making a decision as to whether or not to amend current regulatio ns based on a petition for rulemaking:

1) The immediacy of the safety or security concerns you raise; 2) The priority of other issues the FAA must deal with; and 3) The resources we have available to address these issues

.

Each year, t he FAA prioritizes its rule making projects based on issues that are crucial to the safety of the aviation community and the traveling public to ensure the FAA delivers the most value to the aviation system

.

After reviewing your request b ased on the current priorities for the FAA and the guidelines found in § 11.73, we determined the issue you raised does not meet the criteria to pursue rulemaking at this time. However, your comments and arguments for the proposed rule change in your petition will be placed in a database, which we will examine when we consider future rulemaking.2

If the FAA does pursue rulemaking in this area in the future, you would be able to find

out and track it through one of the two following websites :

 For significant rulemakings, you can find the status o n the Department of Transportation’s (DOT) website ( http://www.dot.gov/regulations/report

- on

significant

- rulemakings )

.

 For non

- significant rulemakings, you can find the sta tus on the DOT’s semi

annual regulatory agenda , through the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) Office of Information and Regulatory Affair’s (OIRA) Unified Agenda website ( http://www.reginfo. gov/public/do/eAgendaMain ).

For the reasons above, we are dismissing your petition for rulemaking in accordance with 14 CFR § 11.73.

Sincerely,

/s/

Lirio Liu Director, Office of Rulemaking
Exhibit 10.12


SUMMARY OF COMPENSATION OF NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS


The Company uses a
combination of cash and stock-based incentive compensation to attract and
retain qualified candidates to serve on the Board.  In setting director compensation, the Company
considers the significant amount of time that Directors expend in fulfilling
their duties to the Company, as well as the skills required by the Company of
members of the Board.


Annual
Retainer


For
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006, each Non-employee member of the Board
received an annual retainer of $20,000 payable in cash and $50,000 payable in
cash or Common Stock of the Company (subject to rounding up or down such that
the number of shares issued to each Director is a whole number, but not to exceed
$50,000 in value), pursuant to the Edge Petroleum Corporation Incentive Plan,
as amended and restated (the “Incentive Plan”). 
Furthermore, all Directors are reimbursed for out-of-pocket
expenses incurred in attending meetings of the Board or Board committees and
for other expenses incurred in their capacity as Directors.  No stock options were granted to Directors in
2006.


In
addition, the chairmen of the Board’s standing committees (Audit, Compensation
and Corporate Governance/Nominating) each spend a significant amount of extra
time beyond what is required for Board committee membership in performing their
duties.  In acknowledgment of this fact,
the chairmen of each standing committee receive the following additional annual
retainers, payable in cash:


	
  Audit Committee Chairman

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  10,000

  	
   

  
	
  Compensation
  Committee Chairman

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  5,000

  	
   

  
	
  Corporate
  Governance/Nominating Committee Chairman

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  5,000

  	
   

  



 


The
annual cash retainers are payable to each Board member and committee chairman,
as applicable, as of the date of the annual meeting of stockholders for the
following year.  For example, Directors
elected at and continuing to serve at the date of the annual meeting of
stockholders on May 23, 2007 will receive payment of their respective annual
cash retainers that day for their services as directors until the date of the
next annual meeting of stockholders in 2008. 
If the Company elects to pay a portion of the annual retainer in common
stock of the Company, as described above, the grant date for the stock award
will be the first business day of the month following the annual meeting, e.g.,
directors elected at and continuing to serve at the May 23, 2007 annual meeting
will receive any applicable portion of their annual retainer that is to be paid
in common stock of the Company as of June 1, 2007.


Board and Board Committee Meeting Fees


Each
Non-employee Director receives $1,500 cash for in-person attendance at a
meeting of the Board of Directors ($500 if such attendance is telephonic) and
$1,500 cash for each meeting of a standing Committee of the Board of Directors
attended ($500 if telephonic). Board and Board committee meeting fees are paid
in cash to the directors at the time of the respective meetings.
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



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of ArthroCare Corporation (the
Company) hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:



1.    The accompanying annual report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2003 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section
15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



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



|                     |  |  |  |     |  |                                                                            |  | 
|-------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|Date: March 12, 2004 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/    MICHAEL A.
BAKERMichael A. Baker
President, Chief Executive Officer



The foregoing
certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into
any filing of the Company, whether made before of after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                       4,648,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,452,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   398,000
<INVENTORY>                                    641,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             8,415,000
<PP&E>                                         395,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                  73,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              10,460,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,294,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        62,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,428,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                10,460,000
<SALES>                                      9,753,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             9,753,000
<CGS>                                        4,301,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                9,094,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               361,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             154,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                608,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   278,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            330,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   330,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .06
        

</TABLE>
#### § 301.30 Address for submissions to the Technical Panel and Dispute Resolution Board.

Submissions to the Technical Panel and the Dispute Resolution Board under this section shall be made to the Office of the Assistant Secretary, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.

[81 FR 3338, Jan. 21, 2016]
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 157 (Tuesday, August 15, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Page 46912]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-6960]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 
System.

TIME AND DATE: 11:30 a.m., Monday, August 21, 2006.

PLACE: Marriner S. Eccles Federal Reserve Board Building, 20th and C 
Streets, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20551.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:
    1. Personnel actions (appointments, promotions, assignments, 
reassignments, and salary actions) involving individual Federal Reserve 
System employees.
    2. Any items carried forward from a previously announced meeting.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michelle Smith, Director, or Dave 
Skidmore, Assistant to the Board, Office of Board Members at 202-452-
2955.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: You may call 202-452-3206 beginning at 
approximately 5 p.m. two business days before the meeting for a 
recorded announcement of bank and bank holding company applications 
scheduled for the meeting; or you may contact the Board's Web site at 
http://www.federalreserve.gov for an electronic announcement that not 
only lists applications, but also indicates procedural and other 
information about the meeting.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, August 11, 
2006.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 06-6960 Filed 8-11-06; 2:43 pm]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
#### IN THE MATTER OF HAL W. VAUGHN, JR.

(Supreme Court Disciplinary Nos. 598, 599)

(378 SE2d 126)

Per curiam.

This opinion combines two disciplinary complaints against Hal W. Vaughn.

1. In Number 598, Vaughn was charged with violating Standards 4, 44, 45, 61, 63, 65 and 68 of Rule 4-102 of the Rules and Regulations of the State Bar of Georgia. These charges grew out of allegations that Vaughn failed to account for funds entrusted to him in a fiduciary capacity. In response to the formal complaint, Vaughn demanded a jury trial pursuant to Rule 4-214 of the Rules and Regulations of the State Bar of Georgia.

The State Bar then filed a motion for partial summary judgment, to which Vaughn did not respond. The Special Master recommended that the motion be granted. Adopting the finding of facts and the conclusions of law of the Special Master, the Review Panel of the State Disciplinary Board recommended disbarment. Vaughn filed exceptions to this disposition, again demanding a jury trial.

2. Rule 4-215 of the Rules and Regulations of the State Bar of Georgia provides, in part:

> (b) Before filing a complete copy of the record with the superior court, the special master shall: (1) Rule upon all motions, except for evidentiary motions. . . . (d) The superior *187court judge shall review all rulings made by the special master and affirm, modify, reverse or remand the rulings prior to trial, rule upon all evidentiary motions and shall preside over the trial of the case.

Decided April 14, 1989.

*William P. Smith III, General Counsel State Bar, Viola S. Drew, Assistant General Counsel State Bar,*for State Bar of Georgia.

*Alan M. Medof,*for Vaughn.

Pursuant to the provisions of Rule 4-215 (b) and (d), Vaughn is entitled to have the superior court review the grant of partial summary judgment of the Special Master.

3. Disciplinary proceeding Number 599 alleges a set of circumstances closely analogous to Number 598. In Number 599, the State Bar also filed a motion for partial summary judgment for a violation of Standard 65, which the Special Master recommended be granted. Because of the disposition of Number 598, the original record in Number 599 will be returned to the State Disciplinary Board to be transferred to the inactive docket until the conclusion of Number 598.

*Case remanded to superior court.*

*All the Justices concur.*