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

No. 80-337

#### City of Rochester *& a.*v. William Smith *& a.*

March 11, 1981

*Wadleigh, Starr, Peters, Dunn & Kohls,*of Manchester *(Theodore Wadleigh*on the brief), by brief for the plaintiffs.

*Mullaney & Richardson,*of Rochester *(John G. Richardson*on the brief), by brief for the defendant William Smith.

Per curiam.

The issue in this workmen’s compensation appeal is whether, on remand, the trial court erred in not allowing the defendant to present additional evidence. We uphold the trial court.

When this case was here before, we held that the evidence did not support the finding by the trial court that the defendant, a firefighter, was totally disabled as a result of smoke inhalation. *City of Rochester v. Smith,*119 N.H. 495, 403 A.2d 421 (1979). We remanded the case, stating that “the trial court should determine the duration and extent of defendant’s temporary disability resulting from the lung condition, consistent with this opinion and the relevant evidence already before it.” *Id.*at 499, 403 A.2d at 424.

On remand, the defendant moved that he be allowed to introduce medical evidence which he had not produced at the first trial. This motion was denied, and the Court *(Mullavey,*J.), on the evidence already before it, determined that Smith’s disability continued from July 4, 1976, to July 18, 1976. The court then denied the defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict, and he appealed.

We thought that our previous opinion made it clear that on *185remand the trial court was to “determine the duration and extent of defendant’s temporary disability” on the “evidence already before it.” *Id.*The defendant had a full opportunity at the first trial to submit whatever medical evidence he chose in order to establish that any disability from which he suffered was medically connected to the smoke inhalation incident which occurred on July 4, 1976. We said in our prior opinion that there was insufficient evidence to sustain a finding that the defendant was disabled by lung problems, at least after August 31, 1976, the date on which the defendant was first examined by the only doctor to testify at the first trial. *Id.*at 499, 403 A.2d at 423. The prior decision therefore precluded a finding of partial disability subsequent to that date and left it to the trial court to determine when, within the period from July 4 to August 31, the defendant’s disability ceased. The trial court has now done that, and we cannot say that the evidence compelled a different finding.

Having had a full opportunity to litigate the duration of his disability, the defendant is not entitled to retry that issue unless the record reveals grounds for a new trial, which it does not in this case. *See Bricker v. Sceva Speare Hosp.,*115 N.H. 709, 711, 350 A.2d 623, 625 (1975); RSA 526:1. The trial court correctly conducted a hearing that did not exceed the scope of the remand. *See Scarborough v. R.T.P. Enterprises, Inc.,*120 N.H. 707, 709, 422 A.2d 1304, 1306-07 (1980).

*Appeal dismissed; affirmed.*
#### § 69.303 Information origination/termination equipment (IOT).

Investment in all other IOT shall be apportioned between the Special Access and Common Line elements on the basis of the relative number of equivalent lines in use, as provided herein. Each interstate or foreign Special Access Line, excluding lines designated in § 69.115(e), shall be counted as one or more equivalent lines where channels are of higher than voice bandwidth, and the number of equivalent lines shall equal the number of voice capacity analog or digital channels to which the higher capacity is equivalent. Local exchange subscriber lines shall be multiplied by the interstate Subscriber Plant Factor to determine the number of equivalent local exchange subscriber lines.

[52 FR 37312, Oct. 6, 1987, as amended at 62 FR 31938, June 11, 1997]
#### § 10.430 Character limit.

A Participating CMS Provider must support transmission of an Alert Message that contains a maximum of 360 characters of alphanumeric text. If, however, some or all of a Participating CMS Provider's network infrastructure is technically incapable of supporting the transmission of a 360-character maximum Alert Message, then that Participating CMS Provider must support transmission of an Alert Message that contains a maximum of 90 characters of alphanumeric text on and only on those elements of its network incapable of supporting a 360 character Alert Message.

[81 FR 75726, Nov. 1, 2016]
#### § 60-741.67 Notification of agencies.

The Director shall ensure that the heads of all agencies are notified of any debarments taken against any contractor.
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas October 13, 2022
No. 04-22-00410-CV
ALL OCCUPANTS , Appellant

v. V&S TOTAL TRADE, LLC ,

Appellee From the County Court at Law No. 3, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2022CV01033 Honorable David J. Rodriguez, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R This is an appeal in a forcible detainer case regarding 1619 Buena Vista St., Apt. 1B , San Antonio, TX, 78207. Appellant appealed the trial court’s judgment, which awarded possession of the real property to Appellee. Included in the clerk’s record on appeal is the trial court’s judgment and a writ of possession. The record does not show that Appellant filed a supersedeas bond to suspend the judgment. Nor does the record include a sheriff’s return, indicating the writ of possession has been executed and possession delivered to Appellee. A case becomes moot if, at any stage of the proceedings, a controversy ceases to exist between the parties. See Marshall v. Hous. Auth. of City of San Antonio , 198 S.W.3d 782, 787 (Tex. 2006). “When a tenant is no longer in possession of the property and has not superseded the judgment of possession, [his] appeal is moot unless: (1) she timely and clearly expressed an intent to exercise the right of appeal, and (2) appellate relief is not futile.” Stewart v. Fiesta City Realtors , No. 04-17-00839-CV, 2018 WL 4760151, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Oct. 3, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op.). “Appellate relief is not futile if the tenant holds and asserts ‘a potentially meritorious claim of right to current, actual possession” of the property. Id. (emphasis in original). Issues independent of possession may be reviewable, even if the issue of possession is moot. See Cavazos v. San Antonio Hous. Auth ., No. 04-09-00659-CV, 2010 WL 2772450, at *2 (Tex. App.—San Antonio July 14, 2010, no pet.) (mem. op.). Here, it is unclear whether Appellant currently holds possession of the real property at issue in this appeal. It also is not apparent from the record whether appellant holds and asserts a potentially meritorious claim of right to current, actual possession of the property.Accordingly, we ORDER Appellant to show cause in writing no later than October 28,

2022, why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See T EX . R. APP . P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f), 44.3. If Appellant does not respond by October 28, 2022, this appeal is subject to dismissal. All other appellate deadlines are SUSPENDED pending further order of this court.

_________________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 13th day of October, 2022.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1
                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

         We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Prospectus
constituting part of the Registration Statement on Form S-8 of the Catellus
Development Corporation Amended and Restated Executive Stock Option Plan and the
Stock Option Agreement (Joseph R. Seiger), the Registration Statement on Form
S-8 of the Catellus Development Corporation Profit Sharing & Savings Plan and
Trust, the Registration Statement on Form S-8 of the Catellus Development
Corporation Long Term Incentive Compensation Plan, Stock Purchase Program,
Incentive Stock Compensation Plan and Stock Option Plan, the Registration
Statement on Form S-8 of the Catellus Development Corporation 1995 Stock Option
Plan, the Registration Statement on Form S-8 of the Catellus Development
Corporation 1995 Stock Option Plan and the Registration Statement on Form S-8 of
the Catellus Development Corporation 1996 Performance Award Plan (Nos. 33-58143,
33-38827, 33-42124, 333-01215 and 333-04293, respectively) of our report dated
February 12, 1997, appearing on page F-2 of this Form 10-K. We also consent to
the incorporation by reference of our report on the Financial Statement
Schedules, which appears on page S-1 of this Form 10-K.

Price Waterhouse LLP
San Francisco, California
March 31, 1997
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

In re: SOLAS OLED LTD.,

Appellant

______________________

2022-1013

______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2020-

00320.

______________________ 

ON MOTION

______________________

O R D E R

Samsung Display Co., Ltd. moves unopposed to withdraw from this appeal, and Solas OLED Ltd. moves unopposed to voluntarily dismiss the appeal.

Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) Samsung’s motion is granted. The revised official 

caption and short caption are reflected in this order.

(2) Solas’s motion is granted. The appeal is dismissed.

Case: 22-1013 Document: 19 Page: 1 Filed: 03/17/2022
2 IN RE SOLAS OLED LTD.

(3) Each party shall bear its own costs.

 March 17, 2022 

 Date

 FOR THE COURT

 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

 Peter R. Marksteiner

 Clerk of Court

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: March 17, 2022

Case: 22-1013 Document: 19 Page: 2 Filed: 03/17/2022
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

June 26, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
130506 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STAT E OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 130506 COA: 255449 Wayne CC: 04-000691 AARON MAURICE HAMILTON, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 22, 2005 judgment of the Court of Appeals is cons idered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

l0619 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

June 26, 2006

Clerk
I

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4626

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to clarify the treatment of

foreign source income of United States-owned multinational insurance

agents and brokers.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 22, 1994

Mr. CARDIN (for himself and Mr. ARCHER) introduced the following bill;

which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to clarify

the treatment of foreign source income of United Statesowned multinational insurance agents and brokers.

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 (a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as the

5 ‘‘Insurance Broker Foreign Source Income Clarification

6 Act of 1994’’.

7 (b) AMENDMENT OF 1986 CODE.—Except as other8 wise expressly provided, whenever in this Act an amend9 ment or repeal is expressed in terms of an amendment
2

HR 4626 IH

1 to, or repeal of, a section or other provision, the reference

2 shall be considered to be made to a section or other provi3 sion of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

4 SEC. 2. CLARIFICATION OF RULES APPLICABLE TO

5 UNITED STATES-OWNED MULTINATIONAL IN6 SURANCE AGENTS AND BROKERS.

7 Subsection (b) of section 1296 is amended by adding

8 at the end thereof the following new subsection:

9 ‘‘(4) TREATMENT OF CERTAIN INSURANCE

10 AGENTS OR BROKERS.—In the case of any foreign

11 corporation which is a controlled foreign corporation

12 (as defined in section 957(a)), the term ‘passive in13 come’ does not include any income derived from in14 surance brokerage or agency services. Income earned

15 on fiduciary funds held by an insurance agent or

16 broker shall not be passive income and such funds

17 shall be treated as having a tax basis equal to their

18 original purchase price.’’.

19 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

20 The amendment made by this Act shall apply to tax

21 years ending after the date of enactment.

Æ
Page 1 of 17
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Page 2 of 17
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Page 3 of 17
Page 4 of 17
Page 5 of 17
Page 6 of 17
Page 7 of 17
Page 8 of 17
Page 9 of 17
 

 

Page 10 of 17
 

Page 11 of 17
 

 

 

Page 12 of 17
Page 13 of 17
Page 14 of 17
Page 15 of 17
Page 16 of 17
Page 17 of 17
§ 32.7600 Extraordinary items. ( a ) This account is intended to segregate the effects of events or transactions that are extraordinary. Extraordinary events and transactions are distinguished by both their unusual nature and by the infrequency of their occurrence, taking into account the environment in which the company operates. This account shall also include the related income tax effect of the extraordinary items.
( b ) This account shall be credited and/or charged with nontypical, noncustomary and infrequently recurring gains and/or losses which would significantly distort the current year's income computed before such extraordinary items, if reported other than as extraordinary items.
( c ) This account shall be charged or credited and Account 4070, Income taxes—accrued, shall be credited or charged for all current income tax effects (Federal, state and local) of extraordinary items.
( d ) This account shall also be charged or credited, as appropriate, with a contra amount recorded to Account 4350, Net noncurrent deferred nonoperating income taxes or Account 4110, Net current deferred nonoperating income taxes for the income tax effects (Federal, state and local) of extraordinary items that have been deferred in accordance with § 32.22.
[67 FR 5700, Feb. 6, 2002]
Summary of Embarq Corp 2007 Short-Term Incentive Program



 Exhibit 10.20 
 Embarq Corporation 
 Summary of 2007 Short-Term Incentive Program 
 On February 21 and 22, 2007, the Compensation Committee of our Board of Directors established the performance objectives and other terms of our 2007
Short-Term Incentive program, which we refer to as the 2007 STI program, for our eligible employees, including our executive officers. The 2007 STI program provides for a payment of incentive compensation to our eligible employees, including our
executive officers, based on the weighted achievement of performance objectives during 2007 relating to telecommunications segment services revenue (40% weighting) and operating cash flow (40% weighting), both as adjusted for certain items, and
customer satisfaction improvement (20% weighting). 
 Each performance objective has a threshold, target and maximum payment level at 0%,
100% and 200% of an individual’s target opportunity. An eligible employee’s incentive target opportunity will be multiplied by the weightings and the payment level for each performance objective to calculate the actual STI payment. The
incentive payments paid under the 2007 STI program will be based on our results in 2007 in relation to the established performance objectives, and these payments may be greater or less than the individual target opportunities. The determination of
the amount of payments for certain executive officers is expected to be made so as to comply with Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code.
No. 11-5825.

#### Meeks *v.*United States.

C. A. 8th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
§ 15.237 Operation in the bands 72.0-73.0 MHz, 74.6-74.8 MHz and 75.2-76.0 MHz. ( a ) The intentional radiator shall be restricted to use as an auditory assistance device.
( b ) Emissions from the intentional radiator shall be confined within a band 200 kHz wide centered on the operating frequency. The 200 kHz band shall lie wholly within the above specified frequency ranges.
( c ) The field strength within the permitted 200 kHz band shall not exceed 80 millivolts/meter at 3 meters. The field strength of any emissions radiated on any frequency outside of the specified 200 kHz band shall not exceed the general radiated emissions limits specified in § 15.209. The emission limits in this paragraph are based on measurement instrumentation employing an average detector. The provisions in § 15.35 for limiting peak emissions apply.
[54 FR 17714, Apr. 25, 1989, as amended at 57 FR 13048, Apr. 15, 1992; 78 FR 34927, June 11, 2013]
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Foreign Claims Settlement Commission 

The Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, pursuant to its regulations (45 CFR part 504) and the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b), hereby gives notice in regard to the scheduling of meetings for the transaction of Commission business and other matters specified, as follows: 

# Date and Time: 

Thursday, August 31, 2006, at 10 a.m. 

# Subject Matter: 

Issuance of Proposed Decisions and Amended Final Decisions in claims against Albania. 

# Status: 

Open. 

All meetings are held at the Foreign claims Settlement Commission, 600 E Street, NW., Washington, DC. Requests for information, or advance notices of intention to observe an open meeting, may be directed to: Administrative Officer, Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, 600 E Street, NW., Room 6002, Washington, DC 20579. Telephone: (202) 616-6988. 

Dated at Washington, DC. 

Mauricio J. Tamargo, 

Chairman. 

[FR Doc. 06-7103 Filed 8-18-06; 1:36 pm] 

BILLING CODE 4410-01-P
175P12-2

#### State v. Aaron Pittman

Def’s Petition for *Writ of Certiorari*to Review Order of COA (COAP14-452)

Dismissed

Ervin, J.,

recused
#### § 64.6140 xxx

###### Cross Reference

Link to an amendment published at 89 FR 77368, Sept. 20, 2024.
SERVED: JUNE 1,2011 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

..^RMvJENTOF 

A S: 3U 

IN THE MATTER OF 

COMLUX AVIATION SERVICES LLC 

FAA DOCKET NO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

FDMS NO. FAA-2011-0291 

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT AND DISMISSAL OF PROCEEDING 

This proceeding (heretofore designated as Case No. EIR 2010-GL-11-0109) was received 

in the Office of Hearings on April 21, 2011, and has been assigned to the undersigned. On 

May 12, 2011, Respondent moved to withdrew its request for hearing, stating that the parties 

have settled the matter;' and Complainant withdrew its complaint, asking that the case be 

dismissed.^ Accordingly, pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.215, Respondent's motion is granted and 

this proceeding is dismissed with prejudice. 

The FAA shall send the Judge and the Docket a copy of any compromise order or final 

order assessing civil penalty. 

SO ORDERED. 

Ronnie A. Yode 

Chief Administrative 

Attachment - Service List 

' Respondent's Motion to Withdraw the Request for Hearing, at 1. 

^ Withdrawal of Complaint, at 1. 
i 

M 

FDMS NO. FAA-2011 -0291 | 

(Civil Penalty Action) | 

I 

SERVICE LIST | 

lis 

i 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY li 

i}; 

^.• ^ 

Federal Aviation Administration f, 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. | | 

Washington S,! , DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 |i 

Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2Wl000^ | 

ONE COPY il 

Jason Dickstein, Respondent's Counsel | | 

Washington Aviation Group, PC and the f^ 

Law Offices of Jason A. Dickstein | ! 

2233 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W., Suite 503 ^| 

Washington, DC 20007 01 

TEL: 202-628-6776 f1 

FAX: 202-628-8948 | | 

Chris G. Zurales, Complainant's Counsel I 

Office of the Regional Counsel, AGL-7K ; 3 

Great Lakes Region | 

Federal Aviation Administration 

2300 East Devon Avenue 

DesPlaines,IL 60018-4696 j | 

TEL: 847-294-7713 '": 

FAX: 847-294-7498 -

The Honorable Ronnie A. Yoder, 

Chief Administrative Law Judge 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Office of Hearings, M-20, Room El 2-320 i 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2142 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

^ Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wflbw Wright Building—Suite 2W1000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

- 2 -
## In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07 - 15 - 00172 - CV CURTIS SHABAZZ, APPE LLANT

V. BARRY L. MARTIN, APP ELLEE On Appeal from the 47th District Court Potter County, Texas Trial Court No. 103193 -

A, Honorable Dan L. Schaap, Presiding 

### May 21 , 2015 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ. Appellant Curtis Sha bazz, a prison inmate appearing pro se, filed a notice of appeal but did not pay the filing fee. See T EX . R. A PP . P . 5. By letter of April 22, 2015 we directed Shabazz to pay the filing fee or file an affidavit of indigence, and if indigent, to comply with Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chap ter 14 by filing an affidavit relating to previous filings and a certified copy of his inmate account. See T EX . C IV . P RAC . & R EM . C ODE A NN . § 14.002 (a) (West Supp. 2014) (stating that Chapter 14 applies to appeals brought by a n inmate in an appellate court) . The letter further2

notified Shabazz that his appeal would be subject to dismissal without further notice, should he fail to comply . See T EX . R. A PP . P. 42.3(c). Shabazz has made no response to our letter. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. T EX . R. A PP . P. 42.3(c); 43.2(f).
James T. Campbell Justice
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 23

- 00522

- CR

MELAYNA DIANE HOWARD

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Appeal from the 452nd District Court of Edwards County , Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2107

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on
appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed

. The Court
orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED

. We further order this decision certified below for observance.
August 22, 2024
No. 11-5394.

#### Porter *v.*Lombardi et al.

C. A. 8th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.