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

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Tuesday, July 11, 1995 (92), Para 92.23 Energy and Water Development Appropriations]
[Page 1109]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.92.23  energy and water development appropriations

  The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. CUNNINGHAM, pursuant to House Resolution 
171 and rule XXIII, declared the House resolved into the Committee of 
the Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 1905) making appropriations for energy and water development 
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1996, and for other purposes.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. CUNNINGHAM, by unanimous consent, 
designated Mr. OXLEY as Chairman of the Committee of the Whole; and 
after some time spent therein,
```
#### § 1241.15 Railroad classification survey form.

Commencing with the year ending December 31, 1982, and thereafter, until further order, all railroad companies not required to file an Annual Report (Form R-1) shall compute their adjusted revenues using the railroad revenue deflator formula. If there is a change in a carrier's classification the survey form shall be filed with the Office of Economics, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, DC, on or before March 31.

[48 FR 2544, Jan. 20, 1983, as amended at 81 FR 8856, Feb. 23, 2016]
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 the Treasury

###### Fiscal Service

# AGENCY:

Financial Management Service, Fiscal Service, Treasury.

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

This notice announces the appointment of members to the Financial Management Service (FMS) Performance Review Board (PRB).

# DATES:

This notice is effective July 20, 2007.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Judith R. Tillman, Deputy Commissioner, Financial Management Service, 401 14th Street, SW., Washington, DC; telephone (202) 874-7000.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4), this notice is given of the appointment of individuals to serve as members of the FMS PRB. This Board reviews the performance appraisals of career senior executives below the Assistant Commissioner level and makes recommendations regarding ratings, bonuses, and other personnel actions. Four voting members constitute a quorum. The names and titles of the FMS PRb members are as follows:

## Primary Members

Judith R. Tillman, Deputy Commissioner.

Rita Bratcher, Assistant Commissioner, Debt Management Services.

Sheryl R. Morrow, Assistant Commissioner, Federal Finance.

Wanda Rogers, Assistant Commissioner, Regional Operations.

Charles R. Simpson, Assistant Commissioner, Information Resources.

D. James Sturgill, Assistant Commissioner, Governmentwide Accounting.

## Alternate Members

Scott H. Johnson, Assistant Commissioner, Management (Chief Financial Officer).

Janice Lucas, Assistant Commissioner, Financial Operations.

Dated: July 18, 2007.

Judith R. Tillman,

Deputy Commissioner.

[FR Doc. 07-3531 Filed 7-19-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4810-35-M
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Tuesday, May 16, 1995 (67), Para 67.32 Adjournment]
[Page 748]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.67.32  adjournment

  On motion of Ms. JACKSON-LEE, at 9 o'clock p.m., the House adjourned.
```
ex10-4.htm


Exhibit 10.4


 


SERVICES AGREEMENT







This agreement is entered into as of October 1, 2013, between STW Resources Holding Corp, a Nevada corporation (herein referred to as “STW” or the “Company”), its subsidiaries and/or affiliates and Lee Maddox, an individual residing in Midland Texas, (herein referred to as “Brooks”).







Whereas STW is seeking assistance in enabling its subsidiaries – STW Oilfield Construction, LLC - to secure equipment through rental or purchase agreement, including, if necessary, providing personal guarantees to lenders and/or suppliers (the “Services”).







Whereas Maddox has agreed to provide such Services.







TERMS







Brooks shall provide STW the Services, specifically (i) a personal guarantee for $20,000 necessary for certain heavy equipment rental (equipment)_____________ (and name the lender)________________________); and recognizes that the contemplated personal guarantees are for a period of up to six months.







The term of this agreement shall be for 6 months (the “Term”). As compensation for its services, Brooks shall receive three hundred and eighty two thousand (166,700) shares of common stock of the Company equivalent to the face amount of the at-risk capital ($20,000 at $0.12 per common share) upon execution of this Agreement.







STW may terminate this agreement at any time with written notice. All compensation due to Brooks pursuant to this Agreement shall be due and payable upon the termination.







This agreement may only be modified in writing and has to be signed by all parties to this agreement and shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their permitted successors.







This agreement shall be joint and several. This agreement is governed and construed under the laws of the State of Texas. If in the event of litigation relating to this agreement, the prevailing party shall pay all reasonable attorney fees and court cost applicable by law.







If any part of this agreement is considered invalid, the remaining covenants shall be in full force and effect.







This agreement sets forth the entire understanding between the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof; there are no oral agreements, promises or other understandings exist with respect to this agreement, except those specifically set forth herein.







 Approved and agreed to as of September 22, 2013:












By_____________________________                               Date_________________


     Stanley T. Weiner


     President & Chief Executive Officer


     STW Resources, Inc.


     619 West Texas Avenue


     Midland, TX 79701

















By_______________________________                                Date__________________


     Lee Maddox
#### Frederick W. Wurster et al., Appellants, *v.*The City of New York et al., Respondents.

*Wurster*v. *City of New York,*136 App. Div. 408, affirmed.

(Argued June 1, 1910;

decided June 17, 1910.)

Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered January 26, 1910, which affirmed an order of Special Term denying a motion to continue *jjendente lite*an injunc*535tion restraining the discontinuance of certain ferries across the East river.

The following questions were certified :

*“First.*Can the plaintiffs maintain this action?

*“Second.*May the Supreme Court in itp discretion grant the injunction asked for *pendente lite*f ”

*Nathaniel A. Elsberg, Chase Mellen*and *Francis Wood-bridge*for appellants.

*Archibald N. Watson, Corporation Comisel (Theodore Connoly*and *Terence Farley*of counsel), for respondents.

Order affirmed, with costs; first question answered in the negative; second question *not answered ; no*opinion.

Concur: Gray, Haight, Vann, Werner, Hiscock and Chase, JJ. Absent: Cullen, Ch. J.
halex_ex102.htm



EXHIBIT 10.2


 





 




  





1











  








 





 




  





2











  






 






 




  





3











  






 





 




  





4











  








 






 




  





5











  






 





 


 

6
#### GEORGE M. CHAPMAN, Respondent, v. JOHN G. L. BOETCHER, Appellant, Impleaded, etc.

*Bale of real estate under an execution*— when *it will be set aside becamse of the inadequacy of the price paid.*

Appeal from an order granting a motion to set aside a salé of real property under executions.

The motion was based on four grounds:

*First.*Because the judgment debtor had, at the time of the issuing of said execution and precept, ample personal property within the county subject to levy and sale under execution, which fact was known to the defendant.

*Second.*Because the property sold consisted of twelve lots of land, and were sold in one parcel.

*Thwd.*Because the price said twelve lots of land were sold for was grossly inadequate, they having been sold for the trifling sum of $190, and their value being between $30,000 and $40,000.

*Fourth.*Because the property was sold under execution and a precept for costs, and a sale of real estate under a precept for ten •dollars costs is illegal.

The order imposed the following terms on the mover, viz.: Ten dollars costs of the motion; the payment of "the original judgment’ •and precept, with interest; the payment of tax certificates held by defendant, amounting to $303.88, with fifteen -per cent in<crest, •amounting to $776.53, and the payment of $750 counsel fees.

The court at General Term said: “ The value of the lands, as •claimed by the plaintiff, was $40,000; as conceded by defendant, was $20,000. They were sold for the sum of $190.

“ The general rule is, as stated by counsel for the appellant, that mere inadequacy of price is not a sufficient ground for setting aside •a judicial sale. I am not clear, however, that the inadequacy may not be so gross as to justify relief on that ground alone, where the rights of third persons have not intervened. In *Marsh*v. *Lowry*(26 Barb., 197), the sale was set aside because the property brought ■one-fifth of its value. In *Bixly*v. *Mead*(18 Wend., 611), where property worth $1,000 was sold for twenty-six dollars, the sale was *607set aside, though no irregularity appeared. Here the property brought one-hundredth part of its value. However this may be, it is well settled that where gross inadequacy appears the court will take hold of minor irregularities to relieve from the sale. *(Collier*v. *Whipple,*13 Wend., 224.) Iu this case the property consisted of city lots, any one'of which should have produced enough to satisfy the judgment, yet the property was sold as an entirety. While this would not render the sale void, it was good ground of relief. *{Griffith*v. Hadley, 10 Bosw., 587.) The present case is not distinguishable from the ease cited, except that the inadequacy of price here is much more gross.

“ The debtor has been guilty of great laches, but the terms imposed upon him at Special Term are ample both for his punishment and the full indemnity of the purchaser.”

*Hugo Irish,*for the respondent.

*Jos. A. Burr, Jr.,*for the appellant.

Opinion by

Cullen, J.

Present — Barnard, P. J., Dykman and Cullen, JJ.

Order vacating sale affirmed, with costs.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   OTHER
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-21-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          23,148
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  302,280
<ALLOWANCES>                                    45,920
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               454,047
<PP&E>                                       1,590,912
<DEPRECIATION>                                 771,629
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,324,027
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          565,690
<BONDS>                                        200,000
<COMMON>                                        39,898
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                     450,966
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,324,027
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               574,676
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  549,716
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 22,557
<INCOME-TAX>                                     8,972
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             13,585
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    13,585
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .34
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .34
        

</TABLE>
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-50796 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. ANTONIO MOLINA-GONZALEZ, also known as Antonio Molina, Defendant-Appellant

___________________________________________________ Cons. w/No. 11-50875 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. ANTONIO MOLINA-GONZALEZ Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:11-CR-522-1 USDC No. 3:08-CR-3327-1 United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D June 14, 2012 Lyle W. Cayce ClerkNo. 11-50796 c/w No. 11-50875

* Pursuant to 5

TH C IR
. 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 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5.4. 2 Before BENAVIDES, STEWART, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Antonio Molina-Gonzalez (Molina) pleaded guilty to entering the United States illegally f

ollowing deportation and was sentenced within the advisory guidelines range to a 21-month term ofimprisonment and toa three-year period of supervised release. Molina was also found to have been in violation of the conditions of his supervised release related to a prior illegal-reentry conviction. For that, hewas sentenced within the advisory guidelines range toa consecutive nine-month term of imprisonment. In imposing the consecutive sentence, the district court considered Molina’s prior assaultive conduct and the need to deter him from returning to the United States. In these consolidated appeals, Molina contends that the district court imposed an unreasonably harsh sentence by ordering that his two sentences be served consecutively. He asserts that the nine-month consecutive sentence was greater than necessary to achieve the statutory goals of sentencing because it failed to reflect his personal circumstances. We have reviewed these contentions for plain error. See United States v. Davis, 602 F.3d 643, 646-47 (5th Cir. 2010). Because the sentences for the new offense and the revocation sentence were within the advisory guidelines ranges, they are presumptively reasonable. See United States v. Lopez-Ve lasquez, 526 F.3d 804, 809 (5th Cir. 2008). Molina has failed to rebut the presumption of reasonableness. See id. AFFIRMED.
§ 1014.160 Communications. ( a ) The agency shall take appropriate steps to ensure effective communication with applicants, participants, personnel of other Federal entities, and members of the public. ( 1 ) The agency shall furnish appropriate auxiliary aids where necessary to afford a handicapped person an equal opportunity to participate in, and enjoy the benefits of, a program or activity conducted by the agency. ( i ) In determining what type of auxiliary aid is necessary, the agency shall give primary consideration to the requests of the handicapped person.
( ii ) The agency need not provide individually prescribed devices, readers for personal use or study, or other devices of a personal nature.
( 2 ) Where the agency communicates with applicants and beneficiaries by telephone, telecommunication devices for deaf person (TDD's) or equally effective telecommunication systems shall be used.
( b ) The agency shall ensure that interested persons, including persons with impaired vision or hearing, can obtain information as to the existence and location of accessible services, activities, and facilities.
( c ) The agency shall provide signage at a primary entrance to each of its inaccessible facilities, directing users to a location at which they can obtain information about accessible facilities. The international symbol for accessibility shall be used at each primary entrance of an accessible facility.
( d ) This section does not require the agency to take any action that it can demonstrate would result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of a program or activity or in undue financial and administrative burdens. In those circumstances where agency personnel believe that the proposed action would fundamentally alter the program or activity or would result in undue financial and administrative burdens, the agency has the burden of proving that compliance with § 1014.160 would result in such alteration or burdens. The decision that compliance would result in such alteration or burdens must be made by the agency head or his or her designee after considering all agency resources available for use in the funding and operation of the conducted program or activity, and must be accompanied by a written statement of the reasons for reaching that conclusion. If an action required to comply with this section would result in such an alteration or such burdens, the agency shall take any other action that would not result in such an alteration or such burdens but would nevertheless ensure that, to the maximum extent possible, handicapped persons receive the benefits and services of the program or activity.
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Wednesday, May 17, 1995 (68), Para 68.14 Congressional Budget--FY 1996-FY 2002]
[Page 752]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.68.14  congressional budget--fy 1996-fy 2002

  The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. GOODLATTE, pursuant to House Resolution 
149 and rule XXIII, declared the House resolved into the Committee of 
the Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the 
following concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 67) setting forth the 
congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal years 
1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. GOODLATTE, by unanimous consent, 
designated Mr. SENSENBRENNER, as Chairman of the Committee of the Whole; 
and after some time spent therein,
  The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. FOX, assumed the Chair.
  When Mr. SENSENBRENNER, Chairman, reported that the Committee, having 
had under consideration said bill, had come to no resolution thereon.
```
Editorial Note on Part 107
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 107 appear at 67 FR 61011, Sept. 27, 2002, 70 FR 56089, Sept. 23, 2005, and 70 FR 73159, Dec. 9, 2005.

§ 107.327 Compromise and settlement. ( a ) At any time before an order issued under § 107.317 or § 107.323 is referred to the Attorney General for enforcement, the respondent or the Office of Chief Counsel may propose a compromise as follows: ( 1 ) In civil penalty cases, the respondent or Chief Counsel may offer to compromise the amount of the penalty by submitting an offer for a specific amount to the other party. An offer of compromise by the respondent shall be submitted to the Chief Counsel who may, after consultation with the Associate Administrator, accept or reject it. ( i ) A compromise offer stays the running of any response period then outstanding.
( ii ) If a compromise is agreed to by the parties, the respondent is notified in writing. Upon receipt of payment by Office of Chief Counsel, the respondent is notified in writing that acceptance of payment is in full satisfaction of the civil penalty proposed or assessed, and Office of Chief Counsel closes the case with prejudice to the respondent.
( iii ) If a compromise cannot be agreed to, the respondent is notified in writing and is given 10 days or the amount of time remaining in the then outstanding response period, whichever is longer, to respond to whatever action was taken by the Office of Chief Counsel or the Administrator, PHMSA.
( 2 ) In compliance order cases, the respondent may propose a consent agreement to the Chief Counsel. If the Chief Counsel accepts the agreement, he issues an order in accordance with its terms. If the Chief Counsel rejects the agreement, he directs that the proceeding continue. An agreement submitted to the Chief Counsel must include: ( i ) A statement of any allegations of fact which the respondent challenges;
( ii ) The reasons why the terms of a compliance order or proposed compliance order are or would be too burdensome for the respondent, or why such terms are not supported by the record in the case;
( iii ) A proposed compliance order suitable for issuance by the Chief Counsel;
( iv ) An admission of all jurisdictional facts; and
( v ) An express waiver of further procedural steps and all right to seek judicial review or otherwise challenge or contest the validity of the order.
( b ) Notwithstanding paragraph (a)(1) of this section, the respondent or Office of Chief Counsel may propose to settle the case. If the Chief Counsel agrees to a settlement, the respondent is notified and the case is closed without prejudice to the respondent.
[Amdt. 107-11, 48 FR 2651, Jan. 20, 1983, as amended at 50 FR 45730, Nov. 1, 1985; Amdt. 107-24, 56 FR 8621, Feb. 28, 1991; 56 FR 15510, Apr. 17, 1991; Amdt. 107-29, 58 FR 51527, Oct. 1, 1993; 66 FR 45377, Aug. 28, 2001]
98-2400.

#### Raglin v. Mohr.

In Habeas Corpus. *Sua sponte,*cause dismissed.

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