alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt except under the limit ed circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 20092 C onfer enc e Cal endar
UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA, P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee
v. LA N D ER G O N ZAL EZ- LO PE Z , D e fe nda nt
- Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e S ou t h ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 4: 08- C R

- 212- 4
B ef ore K IN G , JO L L Y , an d S O U T H W IC K , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R I A M: * T h e att orney app oi n t ed to represe n t L an der G on zal ez- L opez ha s m oved f o rl e av e t o w i t h draw a n d has f i l e d a b r i e f

i n a c c o r da nc e w i t h A nder s v. C a lif o rn ia , 3 86 U
. S. 7 38 ( 19 67 )
. G o nz al e z - Lop e z ha s f i l e d a r e s po ns e . Our i n dep en den trevi ew of t h e rec ord, c ou n sel ’ s bri ef, an d G on zal ez- L opez ’ s r espon se di scl oses n o non f

rivol o u s i ssue f

or app eal
. A ccor di n gl y, coun sel ’ s m ot i on f or l eave to w i t h draw i s G R A N T E D , coun seli s excused f rom f u rt h er r espon sibi l i t i es h e r e in , a n d th e A P P E A L IS D IS M IS S E D
. S ee5 T H C IR . R. 42. 2. United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D December

15, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 852

To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse to be constructed at 10 East Commerce Street in Youngstown, Ohio, as the

‘‘Nathaniel R. Jones and Frank J. Battisti Federal Building and United

States Courthouse’’.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 1, 2001

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

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

A BILL

To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse to be constructed at 10 East Commerce Street

in Youngstown, Ohio, as the ‘‘Nathaniel R. Jones and

Frank J. Battisti Federal Building and United States

Courthouse’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

4 The Federal building and United States courthouse

5 to be constructed at 10 East Commerce Street in Youngs6 town, Ohio, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Na-
2

•HR 852 IH

1 thaniel R. Jones and Frank J. Battisti Federal Building

2 and United States Courthouse’’.

3 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

4 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

5 paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal

6 building and United States courthouse referred to in sec7 tion 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Nathaniel

8 R. Jones and Frank J. Battisti Federal Building and

9 United States Courthouse’’.

Æ
§ 380.107 General requirements. ( a ) Except as provided in § 380.111, a driver who wishes to operate an LCV shall first take and successfully complete an LCV driver-training program that provides the knowledge and skills necessary to operate an LCV. The specific types of knowledge and skills that a training program shall include are outlined in Appendix F to this part.
( b ) Before a person receives training: ( 1 ) That person shall present evidence to the LCV driver-instructor showing that he/she meets the general requirements set forth in subpart B of this part for the specific type of LCV training to be taken.
( 2 ) The LCV driver-instructor shall verify that each trainee applicant meets the general requirements for the specific type of LCV training to be taken.
( c ) Upon successful completion of the training requirement, the driver-student shall be issued an LCV Driver Training Certificate by a certifying official of the training entity in accordance with the requirements specified in subpart D of this part.
[69 FR 16732, Mar. 30, 2004, as amended at 83 FR 22874, May 17, 2018]
Exhibit 10.42


 


INTERCOMPANY
SERVICES EXTENSION AGREEMENT


 


This Extension Agreement dated as of January 1,
2006 is by and between Hallmark Cards, Incorporated (“Hallmark”) and Crown
Media Holdings, Inc. (Crown Holdings”).


 


WHEREAS, Crown Holdings and Hallmark have previously
entered into that certain Intercompany Services Agreement between the parties
dated as of December 23, 2002 (the “Services Agreement”); and


 


WHEREAS, the parties desire to further extend the term
of the Services Agreement;


 


NOW, THEREFORE, Crown Holdings and Hallmark hereby
agree as follows:


 


The term of the License Agreement shall be extended
for an additional period terminating on January 1, 2007, subject to any
earlier termination pursuant to the terms of the Services Agreement.


 


All other terms and conditions of the Services
Agreement will remain unchanged and in full force and effect.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed
this Extension Agreement as of the date set forth above.


 


 


	
  HALLMARK
  CARDS, INCORPORATED

  
	
   

  
	
   

  
	
  By:

  	
  /s/
  Brian Gardner

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Title:

  	
  Exec.
  V.P.

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  CROWN MEDIA HOLDINGS, INC.

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  By:

  	
  /s/
  Charles Stanford

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Title:

  	
  Exec.
  Vice President
#### John C. Donn and others, *Executors, etc., Plaintiffs, v.*The Board of Supervisors of Saratoga County, *Defendants.*Sidney Sherwood and others, *Administrators, etc., Plaintiffs, v.*The Same, *Defendants.*

— Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and printing disbursements in each case. Bocees, J., not acting.
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Thursday October 26, 1995 (135), Para 135.14 Submission of Conference Report--H.R. 1905]
[Pages 1796-1797]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.135.14  submission of conference report--h.r. 1905

  Mr. BUNN submitted a conference report (Rept. No. 104-293) on the bill 
(H.R. 1905) making appropriations for energy and water development for 
the fiscal

[[Page 1797]]

year ending September 30, 1996, and for other purposes; together with a 
statement thereon, for printing in the Record under the rule.
```
#### § 236.534 Entrance to equipped territory; requirements.

Where trains are not required to stop at the entrance to equipped territory, except when leaving yards and stations and speed until entering equipped territory does not exceed restricted speed, the automatic train stop, train control, or cab signal device shall be operative at least stopping distance from the entrance to such territory except where the approach thereto is governed by automatic approach signal.
#### Joseph Buellesbach et al., Respondents, *v.*William Henderson, Appellant.

*Buellesbach*v. *Henderson,*131 App. Div. 901, affirmed.

(Argued November 22, 1910;

decided December 6, 1910.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered March 25, 1909, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiffs entered upon the report of a referee in an action to recover on contract.

*Joseph W. Middlebrook*and *Henry C. Henderson*for appellant.

*Claude V. Pallister*for respondents.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Gray, Haight, Vann, Werner, Hiscock and Collin, JJ.
#### § 236.73 Open-wire transmission line; clearance to other circuits.

Open-wire transmission line operating at voltage of 750 volts or more shall be placed not less than 4 feet above the nearest crossarm carrying signal or communication circuits.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

May 27, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver 135974 Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 135974 COA: 271675 Wayne CC: 06-003040-01 CARLOS DURRELL SIMMONS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the December 11, 2007 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

d0519 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.

May 27, 2008

Clerk
§ 29.912 What is a post-award dispute? A post-award dispute is a claim that arises under the Contract Disputes Act of 1978 (CDA), 41 U.S.C. 7101-7109. Such disputes arise once a compact or funding agreement is executed. Post-award disputes include: ( a ) Disputed interpretation of a provision of an executed compact or funding agreement;
( b ) Disallowance of costs under a funding agreement;
( c ) Suspension of payments under a funding agreement;
( d ) Allocation, distribution, or reduction of funds when a dispute arises between a consortium and a withdrawing Tribe;
( e ) Failure to comply with the terms of a funding agreement; and
( f ) Any other claim arising out of a compact or funding agreement.
Exhibit 11

MERRIMAC INDUSTRIES, INC. COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
            (Unaudited)

Quarter EndedMarch 29,2003
                   
                   March 30,2002Numerator:Net income (loss) available to common
                        stockholders
                   
                   $
                   (455,385
                   )
                   
                   $
                   142,837Basic earnings (loss) per shareWeighted average number of shares
                        outstanding for basic net income (loss) per share Common stock
                   
                   
                   3,120,095
                   
                   
                   
                   2,835,381Net income (loss) per common share
                        — basic
                   
                   $
                   (.15
                   )
                   
                   $
                   .05Diluted earnings (loss) per shareWeighted average number of shares
                        outstanding for diluted net income (loss) per share Common stock
                   
                   
                   3,120,095
                   
                   
                   
                   2,835,381Effect of dilutive securities —
                        stock options (1)
                   
                   
                   —
                   
                   
                   
                   108,047Weighted average number of shares
                        outstanding for diluted net income (loss) per share
                   
                   
                   3,120,095
                   
                   
                   
                   2,943,428Net income (loss) per common share
                        — diluted
                   
                   $
                   (.15
                   )
                   
                   $
                   .05


|    |                                                                                                                                                                         
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(1) | Represents
                   additional shares resulting from assumed conversion of stock options less
                   shares purchased with the proceeds therefrom.

Stock options and warrants did not have an effect on the computation of
            the diluted loss per share in the first quarter of 2003 since they were
            antidilutive.
#### Wairen B. Smith and others, Respondents, v. Smith Moquette Loom Company and another, Defendants; Charles E. Skinner, Appellant.

Order affirmed, with costs at.d disbursements. Opinion by

Barnard, P. J.
Indemnity Letter - John Sunderland



 Exhibit 4.40 
  

			
		  	Barclays Corporate Secretariat
		  	Level 29
		  	One Churchill Place
		  	London
		  	E14 5HP
	 22 June 2005
	  	
		
		  	Tel 020 7116 1000
	 John Sunderland
	  	Fax 020 7116 7665
	 Chairman
	  	
	 Cadbury Schweppes plc
	  	
	 25 Berkeley Square
	  	
	 London
	  	
	 W1J 6HB
	  	

 

 
 Dear John 
 Indemnity contained in Articles of Association 
 This letter supplements and forms part of the terms of your
letter of appointment dated 27 May 2005. 
 For the avoidance of doubt, the Boards have confirmed that as a director of Barclays PLC and Barclays Bank
PLC you have the benefit of and are able to rely upon the indemnity contained in Article 160 of the Barclays PLC Articles of Association and the identical wording in Article 157 of the Barclays Bank PLC Articles of Association, the terms of which
are hereby expressly incorporated into your letter of appointment. Copies of the relevant Articles are attached for your ease of reference. 
 The terms of
this letter are governed by English law and the parties submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the English Courts. 
 Yours
sincerely 
  

					
	 /s/ Lawrence Dickinson
	 		 	 /s/ Patrick Gonsalves

	Lawrence Dickinson	 		 	Patrick Gonsalves
	Company Secretary	 		 	Joint Secretary
	Barclays PLC	 		 	Barclays Bank PLC
			
	Countersigned by	 		 	
			
	 


	 		 	
	Director	 		 	

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 Barclays PLC. Registered in England. Registered No: 48839. Registered Office: 1 Churchill Place,
London E14 5HP
§ 299.701 General requirements. Under the procedures provided in § 299.713, the railroad shall obtain FRA approval of a written inspection, testing, and maintenance program. The program shall provide detailed information, consistent with the requirements set forth in §§ 299.337 through 299.349, and 299.445(a), on the inspection, testing, and maintenance procedures necessary for the railroad to safely operate its system. This information shall include a detailed description of— ( a ) Safety inspection procedures, intervals, and criteria;
( b ) Test procedures and intervals;
( c ) Scheduled preventive maintenance intervals;
( d ) Maintenance procedures; and
( e ) Special testing equipment or measuring devices required to perform safety inspections and tests.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 176 (Wednesday, September 12, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 52089]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-4462]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Defense Logistics Agency

[Requisition No. 07-013]


Membership of the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) Senior Executive 
Service (SES) Performance Review Board (PRB)

AGENCY: Defense Logistics Agency, Department of Defense.

ACTION:  Notice of membership--2007 DLA PRB.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the appointment of members to the 
Defense Logistics Agency Senior Executive Service (SES) Performance 
Review Board (PRB). The publication of PRB composition is required by 5 
U.S.C. 4314(c)(4). The PRB provides fair and impartial review of Senior 
Executive Service performance appraisals and makes recommendations to 
the Director, Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) with respect to pay level 
adjustments and performance awards and other actions related to 
management of the SES cadre.

DATES: Effective Date: September 26, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Defense Logistics Agency, 8725 John J. Kingman Road, Suite 
2533, Fort Belvoir, Virginia 22060-6221.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Stacey Salo, SES Program Manager, 
Human Resources (J-1), Defense Logistics Agency, Department of Defense, 
(703) 767-6406.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4), the 
following are the names and titles of DLA career executives appointed 
to serve as members of the SES PRB. Members will serve a 12 month term, 
which begins on September 26, 2007.
    PRB Chair: Major General Arthur Morrill III, USAF.
    Members: Mr. Jeffrey Neal, Director, Human Resources, Ms. Mae De 
Vincentis, Director, Information Operations/CFO, Mr. James 
McClaugherty, Deputy Commander, Defense Supply Center Columbus.

Lieutenant General Robert T. Dail,
USA, Director, Defense Logistics Agency.
[FR Doc. 07-4462 Filed 9-11-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3620-01-M
PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: 6/24/15 9:32 PM

Received: June 19, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jij-qzr0

Comments Due: July 06, 2015

Submission Type: API

Docket: EBSA-2010-0050

Definition of the Term ‘‘Fiduciary’’; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice; 

Notice of proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of previous proposed rule.

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0050-0204

Definition of the Term Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-0319

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-08831

Submitter Information

Name: Scott Dietrich

Address: 

Albuquerque, NM, 

General Comment

I completely endorse a requirement that any professional who provides investment guidance or 

advice to individuals, whether it be related to their 401k, IRA, Roth IRA, 403b or their 

combined retirement portfolio, be certified as a fiduciary for their client. This should apply to 

Registered Investment Advisors, and Brokers.

Page 1 of 1

https://www.fdms.gov/fdms/getcontent?objectId=0900006481b49214&format=xml&show... 6/24/2015
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Tuesday, October 31, 1995 (137), Para 137.4 Approval of the Journal]
[Page 1804]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.137.4  approval of the journal

  The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mrs. MYRICK, announced she had examined and 
approved the Journal of the proceedings of Monday, October 30, 1995.
  Pursuant to clause 1, rule I, the Journal was approved.
```
#### William H. Ensign v. Mills W. Barse and others.

Motion for new trial granted, with costs to abide the event, on the opinion of Haight, J., in the case of *Chamberlain*v. *Taylor.*

Bradley, J., not sitting.
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-0832.html[7/21/2015 3:30:51 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 08, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvb-lld0

Comments Due: July 21, 2015

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0050

Definition of the Term ‘‘Fiduciary’’; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice; Notice of

 proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of previous proposed rule.

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0050-0205

Definition of Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice and Related Proposed

 Prohibited Transaction Exemptions; Hearing and Comment Period Extension

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-0832

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Slvrsnoozi Anonymous

General Comment

Unlike the government, I have worked hard all of my life and managed my funds carefully. I have planned for

 my retirement and plan to do so within the next few years. I have heard that the current administration plans to

 tell ME how I used the money I have worked for all of my life. Sorry, I don't need your input. Maybe I should

 help the government learn how to live on less in order to save more.
Order entered October 24, 2018

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-00360-CR

DEMOND DEPREE BLUNTSON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 49th District Court

Webb County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2012CRO000674D1

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s October 15, 2018 motion to abate the appeal for a hearing 

on the reporter’s record. In the motion, appellant states that he requested certain portions of the 

reporter’s record but those portions have not been filed and the court reporter has not responded 

to inquiries about the missing portions of the record.

We GRANT the motion to the extent we ORDER the trial court to conduct a hearing at

which Cynthia Perez Lenz is present and to make findings regarding the status of:

 the record, if any, of chambers conference attended by the parties and 

referenced at volume 5, pages 6-7 of the reporter’s record;

 the record, if any, of a discussion between the trial court and appellant 

referenced at volume 8, pages 4-5 of the reporter’s record; and
 the record, if any, of a chambers conference held on April 20, 2016, referred to 

at the charge conference held in open court later that same day and referenced

at volume 1, page 4 of the supplemental reporter’s record. 

In addition, appellant seeks clarification regarding the “accuracy of the matters 

transcribed at 40 RR 37-38, and about the location of a discussion between counsel and the court 

mentioned at 21 RR 5-6.”

We ORDER the trial court to transmit a supplemental record containing its written 

findings of fact, any supporting documentation, and any orders to this Court regarding 

whether the portions detailed above were, in fact, reported and, if so, when they may be filed 

with the Court within TWENTY DAYS of the date of this order.

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order to the Honorable Jose Lopez, 

Presiding Judge, 49th District Court; to Cynthia Perez Lenz, official court reporter, 49th District

Court; and to all counsel for all parties.

We ABATE this appeal to allow the trial court to comply with this order. The appeal 

shall be reinstated when we receive the supplemental record containing the trial court’s findings 

of fact or when the Court otherwise deems it appropriate to reinstate the appeal.

 

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE