alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Order entered August 15, 2018

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-00901-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF M.M., A CHILD

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1

Kaufman County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 97410CC

ORDER

This is an appeal from a parental termination case. Before the Court is Joanna Wray’s 

August 14, 2018 motion for leave to withdraw as counsel for appellant. The record reflects the 

trial court relieved Ms. Wray of her duties as appellant’s attorney on July 19, 2018. 

Accordingly, we DENY the motion as moot. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 107.016(3)(C) (West 

Supp. 2017). We DIRECT the Clerk of the Court to remove Ms. Wray as appellant’s counsel.

Pursuant to Texas Family Code section 107.013, we ORDER the trial court to conduct a 

hearing no later than September 5, 2018 to determine whether appellant, who is presumed 

indigent, desires to be represented by appointed counsel. See id. § 107.013. If appellant desires 

to be represented by appointed counsel, the trial court shall appoint new counsel. If appellant

does not desire to be represented by counsel, the trial court shall advise him of the dangers and 

disadvantages of self-representation. See Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 835 (1975); In re 

C.L.S., 403 S.W.3d 15, 21 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2012, pet. denied). The trial court 
shall also advise appellant that he does not have a due process right to hybrid representation. See 

Smith v. Smith, 22 S.W.3d 140, 153 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, no pet.) (op. on 

reh’g); Posner v. Dallas Cnty. Child Welfare Unit of Tex. Dep’t of Human Servs. 784 S.W.2d 

585, 588 (Tex. App.—Eastland 1990, writ denied) (per curiam). 

We ORDER the trial court to make written findings of fact on each of the aboveidentified issues. We further ORDER a reporter’s record of the hearing and a supplemental 

clerk’s record containing the trial court’s findings and any supporting documentation filed with 

the Court no later than September 10, 2018.

We DIRECT the Clerk of the Court to send a copy of this order to the Honorable Deane 

Loughmiller, Presiding Judge of Kaufman County Court at Law; Shelly L. Etheridge, Official 

Court Reporter for Kaufman County Court at Law; Kaufman County District Clerk Rhonda 

Hughey; Ms. Wray; and, the parties.

We ABATE the appeal to allow the trial court to comply with this order. It shall be 

reinstated no later than September 14, 2018. 

/s/ DAVID EVANS 

JUSTICE
§ 95.16-1 Application. ( a ) “Clean agent” means a halocarbon or inert gas used as a fire extinguishing agent.
( b ) A clean agent extinguishing system must comply with this part. Systems contracted for prior to July 9, 2012, may, as an alternative, comply with 46 CFR 95.16-90.
( c ) Each clean agent system must: ( 1 ) Be of a total flooding type to protect against Class B and Class C hazards as defined in 46 CFR 95.50-5;
( 2 ) Address and minimize any hazard to personnel created by the effects of extinguishing agent decomposition products and combustion products, especially the effects of decomposition product hydrogen fluoride (HF), if applicable;
( 3 ) Be accompanied by an approved manufacturer's design, installation, operation, and maintenance manual;
( 4 ) Be used only to protect enclosed spaces;
( 5 ) Not employ electric power for system actuation or controls; and
( 6 ) Not use any source of power for alarms in protected spaces, other than the extinguishing agent, gas from pilot cylinders, or gas from cylinders specifically provided to power the alarms.
§ 1135.2 Revenue Shortfall Allocation Method: Annual State tax information. ( a ) To enable the Board to calculate the revenue shortfall allocation method (RSAM), which is one of the three benchmarks that are used to determine the reasonableness of a challenged rate under one standard of the Board's *Simplified Standards for Rail Rate Cases,* STB Docket No. 646 (Sub-No. 1) (STB served Sept. 5, 2007), the Association of American Railroads (AAR) shall file with the Board, on or before May 30, the weighted average State tax rates applicable to each Class I railroad for the previous year. The AAR shall submit workpapers detailing its calculations.
( b ) The Board will serve and publish a notice of the filing in the Federal Register within 10 days of the AAR's filing.
( c ) Any interested party may file comments on the AAR's filing within 30 days of the notice described in paragraph (b) of this section. If no comments are received within 30 days, the Board will automatically adopt the AAR's weighted average State tax rates on the 31st day. If comments opposing the AAR's calculations are received, the AAR's response will be due within 20 days of the comments. The Board will review the submission and comments and serve a decision within 60 days from the date of the close of the record that either accepts, rejects, or modifies the AAR's railroad-specific tax information.
[75 FR 8818, Feb. 26, 2010]
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

December 27, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver 129891 Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 129891 COA: 263156 Macomb CC: 04-002705-FH KEVIN P. TAYLOR, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 17, 2005 order of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.

d1219 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.

December 27, 2005

Clerk
Exhibit 21






















































<PAGE>




                   CFW COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT



                                                                      Exhibit 21

       The Company has as its wholly-owned subsidiaries, CFW Telephone Inc., CFW
       Network Inc.,  CFW Cellular  Inc.,  CFW Cable Inc., CFW Cable of Virginia
       Inc.,   CFW   Communications   Services  Inc.,  CFW  Licenses  Inc.,  CFW
       Information  Services Inc. and CFW PCS Inc.,  which are  incorporated  in
       Virginia and are included in the consolidated financial statements of the
       Company.  CFW  Cellular  Inc. is the  managing  partner of Virginia  RSA6
       Cellular   Limited   Partnership   and  Virginia   RSA6  Resale   Limited
       Partnership,   in  each  of  which  it  owns  a  75.7%  interest.   These
       partnerships are also included in the consolidated  financial  statements
       of the Company.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                             168
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   267840
<ALLOWANCES>                                       488
<INVENTORY>                                      15227
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                316982
<PP&E>                                          176691
<DEPRECIATION>                                   56001
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  717609
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           153630
<BONDS>                                         270343
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           251
<OTHER-SE>                                      258964
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    717609
<SALES>                                        1265686
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1265686
<CGS>                                          1031627
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  1031627
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               25862
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  76669
<INCOME-TAX>                                     32278
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              44391
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 (10146)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     34245
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.37
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.27
        

</TABLE>
§ 1520.15 SSI disclosed by TSA or the Coast Guard. ( a ) *In general.* Except as otherwise provided in this section, and notwithstanding the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552), the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a), and other laws, records containing SSI are not available for public inspection or copying, nor does TSA or the Coast Guard release such records to persons without a need to know.
( b ) *Disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act.* If a record contains both SSI and information that is not SSI, TSA or the Coast Guard, on a proper Freedom of Information Act or Privacy Act request, may disclose the record with the SSI redacted, provided the record is not otherwise exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act or Privacy Act.
( c ) *Disclosures to committees of Congress and the General Accounting Office.* Nothing in this part precludes TSA or the Coast Guard from disclosing SSI to a committee of Congress authorized to have the information or to the Comptroller General, or to any authorized representative of the Comptroller General.
( d ) *Disclosure in enforcement proceedings* — ( 1 ) *In general.* TSA or the Coast Guard may provide SSI to a person in the context of an administrative enforcement proceeding when, in the sole discretion of TSA or the Coast Guard, as appropriate, access to the SSI is necessary for the person to prepare a response to allegations contained in a legal enforcement action document issued by TSA or the Coast Guard.
( 2 ) *Security background check.* Prior to providing SSI to a person under paragraph (d)(1) of this section, TSA or the Coast Guard may require the individual or, in the case of an entity, the individuals representing the entity, and their counsel, to undergo and satisfy, in the judgment of TSA or the Coast Guard, a security background check.
( e ) *Other conditional disclosure.* TSA may authorize a conditional disclosure of specific records or information that constitute SSI upon the written determination by TSA that disclosure of such records or information, subject to such limitations and restrictions as TSA may prescribe, would not be detrimental to transportation security.
( f ) *Obligation to protect information.* When an individual receives SSI pursuant to paragraph (d) or (e) of this section that individual becomes a covered person under § 1520.7 and is subject to the obligations of a covered person under this part.
( g ) *No release under FOIA.* When TSA discloses SSI pursuant to paragraphs (b) through (e) of this section, TSA makes the disclosure for the sole purpose described in that paragraph. Such disclosure is not a public release of information under the Freedom of Information Act.
( h ) *Disclosure of Critical Infrastructure Information.* Disclosure of information that is both SSI and has been designated as critical infrastructure information under section 214 of the Homeland Security Act is governed solely by the requirements of section 214 and any implementing regulations.
98-2100.

#### State ex rel. Blake v. Ford.

In Mandamus. On motion to dismiss. Motion to dismiss sustained. Cause dismissed.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 10A

                               Atrion Corporation
  Amended and Restated Incentive Compensation Plan for Chief Financial Officer
                               Calendar Year 2000

This plan provides the opportunity for Jeffery Strickland, Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer of Atrion Corporation, to receive incentive compensation
based on the attainment of certain stated goals during the calendar year 2000.
This plan amends and restates the plan adopted by the Board in 1998 with respect
to the calendar year 2000.

FINANCIAL GOALS:

The financial goal for Atrion for calendar year 2000 is the earnings per share
(EPS) estimate included in the Budget for 2000 prepared by management and
submitted to the Board of Directors at its February 15, 2000 meeting. This EPS
target figure is based on continuing operations and excludes extraordinary and
one-time items.

For the year 2000, if the targeted EPS figure is met, then Jeffery Strickland
(JS) is entitled to incentive compensation equal to 25% of his base salary for
that year. If the target for 2000 is exceeded, then JS shall be entitled to
receive incentive compensation, in addition to the incentive compensation
payable pursuant to the preceding sentence, in an amount equal to that
percentage of his base salary for 2000 that is one-half (1/2) of the percentage
by which the actual EPS for 2000 exceeds the target EPS for 2000.

NON-FINANCIAL GOALS:

JS's performance shall be evaluated by the Board without stated non-financial
goals and any incentive compensation award shall be at the discretion of the
Board.


                                       13
§ 1250.4 Rail infrastructure projects reporting. ( a ) Class I railroads shall submit annually a narrative report of significant rail infrastructure projects that will be commenced during the current calendar year, and a six-month update on those projects. The reports should briefly describe each project, its purpose, location (state/counties), and projected date of completion.
( b ) A “significant rail infrastructure project” is defined as a project with anticipated expenditures of $75 million or more over the life of the project.
( c ) The narrative report should be submitted no later than March 1 of each calendar year and the update no later than September 1 of each calendar year via email to the Board's Office of Public Assistance, Governmental Affairs and Compliance (OPAGAC) via the method and in the form prescribed by OPAGAC. In the event that March 1 or September 1 is a Federal holiday, weekend, or falls on a day when STB offices are closed for any other reason, then the data should be reported on the next business day when the offices are open.
Release dates |     Full version (300 KB PDF)Board Actions |     Actions under delegated authority        Applications and reports received:Boston | New York | Philadelphia   | Cleveland | Richmond   | AtlantaChicago | St. Louis | Minneapolis   | Kansas City | Dallas   | San Francisco

# Actions under delegated authority

## Actions taken during the week ending August 27, 2011

----

Bank Holding CompaniesChicago          Northstar Financial Group, Inc., Bad Axe, Michigan -- to engage de novo in certain permissible nonbanking activities.            -Withdrawn, August 24, 2011            Boston          Provident Bancorp (a mutual bank holding company), Amesbury, Massachusetts -- to form a stock bank holding company, Provident Bancorp, Inc., Amesbury, and to acquire The Provident Bank.            -Approved, August 24, 2011            Bank MergersCleveland          The Commercial and Savings Bank of Millersburg, Millersburg, Ohio -- to purchase assets and assume liabilities of two branches of Premier Bank & Trust, N.A., Wooster.            -Approved, August 22, 2011            Change in Bank ControlPhiladelphia          Heritage Oaks Bancorp, Paso Robles, California -- change in bank control of Heritage Oaks and its subsidiary bank, Heritage Oaks Bank, Paso Robles.            -Withdrawn, August 24, 2011            Atlanta          Northside Bancshares, Inc., Adairsville, Georgia -- change in bank control of Northside and its subsidiary bank, Northside Bank, Adairsville.            -Permitted, August 24, 2011            Philadelphia          Porter Bancorp, Inc., Louisville, Kentucky -- change in bank control of Porter and its subsidiary bank, PBI Bank, Louisville.            -Withdrawn, August 23, 2011            Kansas City          Sunflower Financial, Inc., Salina, Kansas -- change in bank control of Sunflower and its subsidiary bank, Sunflower Bank, National Association, Salina.            -Permitted, August 22, 2011            Extensions of TimeDirector, BS&R          BNP Paribas, Paris, France -- extension of time to divest of a merchant banking investment.            -Granted, August 24, 2011            Boston          Mechanics Bancorp, MHC, Taunton, Massachusetts, and Mechanics Bancorp, Inc. -- extension to November 27, 2011, to become a mutual bank holding company and a stock bank holding company, respectively, and to acquire Mechanics Co-operative Bank, Taunton.            -Granted, August 25, 2011            
Release dates |     Full version (300 KB PDF)Board Actions |     Actions under delegated authority    Applications and reports received:
§ 72.05-45 Paint. ( a ) An excessive number of coats of paint will be discouraged unless noncombustible paint is used.
( b ) Nitrocellulose or other highly flammable or noxious fume-producing paints or lacquers shall not be used.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                               5
<MULTIPLIER>                         1,000
       
<S>                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                          JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                            SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         19,519
<SECURITIES>                                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                                6,872
<ALLOWANCES>                                    0
<INVENTORY>                                     0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               23,052
<PP&E>                                       646,820
<DEPRECIATION>                               193,421
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               601,598
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          20,149
<BONDS>                                      400,405
<COMMON>                                     174,710
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           0
<PREFERRED>                                    50,000
<OTHER-SE>                                    (34,437)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 601,598
<SALES>                                         0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               84,763
<CGS>                                           0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  78,311
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,803
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             23,715
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,050
<INCOME-TAX>                                    0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              6,452
<DISCONTINUED>                                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 (3,786)
<CHANGES>                                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,050
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.22
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.22
        


</TABLE>
Argued and submitted October 2,

reversed and remanded for reconsideration November 8, 1995

#### In the Matter of the Guardianship of Kayreen Donaldson, an Incapacitated Person. Violet DONALDSON, *Respondent, v.*Kayreen DONALDSON, *Appellant.*

(51-94-04125; CA A86148)

904 P2d 659

Elizabeth Joffe argued the cause and filed the briefs for appellant.

Charles O. Porter argued the cause and filed the brief for respondent.

Before Warren, Presiding Judge, and Edmonds and Armstrong, Judges.

PER CURIAM

*524PER CURIAM

In this guardianship matter, respondent agrees that the case should be remanded for reconsideration of all the issues, procedural and substantive. We remand the case to the trial court.

Reversed and remanded for reconsideration.
#### David G. Bryant, *Respondent, v.*Lloyd Stevens and others, *Appellants.*

Judgment and order denying new trial affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Dykman, J.
NEW YORK SUPERIOR COURT.

#### Weston and another agt. Ketcham.

*Special*Term,

*February*1876.

*Alleged violation of trade mark.*

Where the plaintiffs allege that the defendant sells oil under the name of “ Pepper’s Signal Oil,” &c., which in fact is not such, it does not give the plaintiffs a cause of action for the infringement of a trade mark.

Sedgwick, *J.*

— The plaintiffs have no property in the so-called trade mark. In my opinion, the words claimed by plaintiffs as constituting the'trade mark ceased to have any character as such, and became descriptive of a kind of oil. However this may be, the plaintiffs have no property in them. The first owner of the trade mark, so called, was Pepper, and plaintiff Weston had no interest in it. Pepper became partner of defendant Ketcham, and the trade mark became distinctive of the manufacture of the firm. At any rate, it was Ketcham’s property as much as Pepper’s. Since that time, the evidence shows no acquisition of any right from Pepper or from Ketcham, by plaintiff Weston, to the trade mark. I leave out of view an important fact in the case, that if the trade mark were kept in existence as such, by its continuous use by the succession of the various firms, it belonged to any one partner as much as to another. I mean only to point out there has been no transfer of it to the exclusive use of plaintiff West or his present firm.

The only thing which the plaintiffs can claim gave .them the exclusive right to the words composing the alleged trade *456mark, is the agreement of Mrs. Pepper with plain tiff Weston, that the latter, or any firm of which he might be a member, shall have, for five years, “ the exclusive use of the name of Capt. Simeon Pepper in the manufacture of signal oils, as a ‘ trade mark,’ to be designated Capt. S. Pepper’s Signal Oil, or Pepper’s Signal Oil, for the term of five years, and that at the end of the five years she would render and yield up to the plaintiff Weston ‘the said trade mark,’ as hereinbefore described, for his own use, benefit and behoof for ever.” Mrs. Pepppr did not succeed to any business of her husband’s which, continuing, a trade mark belonging to it might continue. Her husband left no such business, and there is no such thing as a trade mark in “ gross,” to use that term by analogy. It must be “ appendant ” of some particular business in which it is actually used upon or in regard to specific articles. And she in no way disclosed by the evidence— and I do not see how any could possibly exist—• became possessed of the right to transfer to any one the right to use her deceased husband’s name.

It came to this, that, as a matter of fact, the claim is, the defendant sells oil which is truly called “Pepper’s Signal Oil,” &c. The evidence rather discloses that it is not that oil but an improvement upon it. Passing that by, the plaintiffs’ further allegation is, that the defendant sells oil under the name of “ Pepper’s Signal Oil,” &e., which, in fact, is not such. I do not think this gives the plaintiffs a cause of action.

The complaint is dismissed, with costs.

Defendant will engross the findings, &e., made by me, and present them to me for signing.