alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed April 1 , 2014.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 13

- 00526

- CR

MISHA ALONDRA CRIDLA ND AKA MISHA ALONDRA LA BRY , Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 122nd District Court Galveston County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 11CR3204



### MEMORANDUM OPINION
After a jury trial
, appellant was convicted of manslaughter. On May 7, 2013, the trial court sentenced appellant to confinement for three years in the Institutional
Division of the Texas De partment of Criminal Justice in accordance with the jury’s assessment of punishment. Appellant filed a timely motion for new trial and notice of appeal. Appellant’s brief in this appeal was not filed, however.On March 4, 2014 , this court ordered a hea ring to determine why appellant’ s counsel had not filed a brief. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(b). On March 17, 2014 , the trial court conducted the hearing , and the record of the hearing was filed in this

court the same day

. Appellant and her counsel appeared at th e hearing. Appellant informed the court that she wants to dismiss her appeal s o that she can complete her sentence
and be released from prison . She asked to be returned to prison as quickly as possible. Appellant confirmed to the court that her counsel had discussed the ramifications of dismissing her appeal with her and she understood the advantages
and di s advantages. At the conclusion of the hearing, t he trial court found appellant no longer desires to prosecute her appeal and wishes to dismiss the appeal

. A supplemental clerk’s record was filed March 21, 2014, containing appellant’s motion to dismiss the appeal, personally signed by appellant, filed in
the court below. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a). In addition, the supplemental record
contains the trial co urt’s recommendation that the appeal be dismissed on appellant’s motion.
On the basis of those findings, this court has construed appellant’s motion to dismiss her appeal filed in the trial court as if the motion were filed in this court

. See Tex. R. App. P. 2. We grant the motion.
Accordingly, we order the appeal dismissed

.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of McCally, Busby, and Donovan

. Do Not Publish

C Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

2
1210-AB32-2-1558.html[7/26/2015 7:33:55 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 11, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jx7-2skt

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-2055

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Barton NeVille

Address:

4105 East 8th St.

Casper, WY, 82609

Email: bneville64@msn.com

Phone: (307) 266-6071

General Comment

A person should be allowed to select investment options based on their judgement as to the risk they want based

 on their particular circumstances. Some may want very conservative investments because of limited resources

 while others have ample resources outside their 401k or IRA and desire more opportunity of return in higher risk

 investments. No federal agencies should be involved dictating options for individuals.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-14-00672-CV

John Dale Dunn and Patricia Louise Sommer, Appellants

v.

Marriott Hotel Corp. d/b/a Renaissance Austin Hotel, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 200TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. D-1-GN-12-001989, HONORABLE GISELA D. TRIANA, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellants have filed an unopposed motion to dismiss appeal pursuant to a settlement

between the parties. We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a).

__________________________________________

Melissa Goodwin, Justice

Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Goodwin and Field

Dismissed on Appellants’ Motion

Filed: January 30, 2015
§ 663.27 Pre-award purchaser's requirements certification. For purposes of this part, a pre-award purchaser's requirements certification is a certification a recipient keeps on file that— ( a ) The rolling stock the recipient is contracting for is the same product described in the purchaser's solicitation specification; and
( b ) The proposed manufacturer is a responsible manufacturer with the capability to produce a vehicle that meets the recipient's specification set forth in the recipient's solicitation.
Editorial Note on Part 387
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 387 appear at 66 FR 49872, Oct. 1, 2001.

§ 387.27 Applicability. ( a ) This subpart applies to for-hire motor carriers transporting passengers in interstate or foreign commerce.
( b ) *Exception.* The rules in this subpart do not apply to— ( 1 ) A motor vehicle transporting only school children and teachers to or from school;
( 2 ) A motor vehicle providing taxicab service and having a seating capacity of less than 7 passengers and not operated on a regular route or between specified points;
( 3 ) A motor vehicle carrying less than 16 individuals in a single daily round trip to commute to and from work; and
( 4 ) A motor vehicle operated by a motor carrier under contract providing transportation of preprimary, primary, and secondary students for extracurricular trips organized, sponsored, and paid by a school district.
[48 FR 52683, Nov. 21, 1983, as amended at 63 FR 33275, June 18, 1998]
§ 826.22 Net worth exhibit. ( a ) Each applicant except a qualified tax-exempt organization or cooperative association must provide with its application a detailed exhibit showing the net worth of the applicant and any affiliates (as defined in § 826.4(f) of this part) when the proceeding was initiated. The exhibit may be in any form convenient to the applicant that provides full disclosure of the applicant's and its affiliates' assets and liabilities and is sufficient to determine whether the applicant qualifies under the standards in this part. The administrative law judge may require an applicant to file additional information to determine the eligibility for an award.
( b ) Ordinarily, the net worth exhibit will be included in the public record of the proceeding. However, an applicant that objects to public disclosure of information in any portion of the exhibit and believes there are legal grounds for withholding it from disclosure may submit that portion of the exhibit directly to the administrative law judge in a sealed envelope labeled “Confidential Financial Information,” accompanied by a motion to withhold the information from public disclosure. The motion shall describe the information sought to be withheld and explain, in detail, why it falls within one or more of the specific exemptions from mandatory disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552(b) (1) through (9), why public disclosure of the information would adversely affect the applicant, and why disclosure is not required in the public interest. The material in question shall be served on counsel representing the agency against which the applicant seeks an award, but need not be served on any other party to the proceeding. If the administrative law judge finds that the information should not be withheld from disclosure, it shall be placed in the public record of the proceeding. Otherwise, any request to inspect or copy the exhibit shall be disposed of in accordance with the Board's established procedures under the Freedom of Information Act as inplemented by Part 801 of the Board's rules.
To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA

Subject: DOL Fiduciary Rule (RIN 1210-AB32) 

Dear Secretary Perez:

Thank you for seeking practical input on how to develop a best interest standard. I'm concerned that the 

current proposal is unworkable. The proposal contains provisions that will have the unintended 

consequence of leaving many retirement savers without access to professional education, advice and 

services.

American investors need reliable education, affordable retirement advice and clear and easily 

understood disclosure. Unfortunately, the current draft:

- Prohibits an advisor from providing advice to plan sponsors under a commission arrangement -

meaning that the employer must pay using a fee-for-service arrangement.

- Narrowly defines investment education, which will limit the assistance advisors can provide without 

triggering fiduciary obligations.

- Does not allow advisors to receive third party compensation when advising plan participants on 

distribution options.

- Creates an inoperable Best Interest Contract Exemption (BIC) - a new exemption that would allow 

otherwise prohibited compensation such as commissions and 12b-1 fees, but is complicated, confusing 

to consumers, costly and in some respects, impossible to comply with.

- Limits third party for variable annuities and fixed annuities with different rules depending upon 

whether in an IRA or in other qualified plans.

In order to make the proposal workable for savers and retirees, I urge the Department to make the 

following changes:

- Permit third party compensation models when working with businesses that sponsor retirement 

savings plans.

- Broaden the education provision, especially with respect to the timing of an advice conversation 

proceeding to the mention of specific investment products. Advisors and consumers must be able to 

discuss together specific investment choices prior to the point at which a recommendation is made and 

a specific choice is contemplated.

- Clarify BIC exemption language to encompass advice on plan distributions and rollovers. It must be 

clear that advice in these situations can be compensated by commissions, 12b-1 fees, and fee sharing if 

the terms of the BIC exemption are satisfied.

- Simplify the contract requirements and eliminate the burdensome data retention and cumulative 

disclosure requirements. The contract should be executable once a full review of the client's 

circumstances, goals, objectives and financial options has been discussed and a decision has been made 

as to a course of action.
- Resolve the conflict between the rules in its BIC PTE proposal and SEC/FINRA rules.

I urge the Department of Labor to re-write this unworkable rule to achieve our mutual goal of an 

effective best interest standard that will retain access to affordable professional advice.
#### § 585.88 Petition to extend period to file report.

A manufacturer may petition for extension of time to submit a report under this Part. A petition will be granted only if the petitioner shows good cause for the extension and if the extension is consistent with the public interest. The petition must be received not later than 15 days before expiration of the time stated in § 585.86(a). The filing of a petition does not automatically extend the time for filing a report. The petition must be submitted to: Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590.
5 August 2013 lAW OFFICE OF 

## MARTIN A. 

## BLUMENTHAL ONE NORTHFIELD PLAZA, SUITE 300 NORTHFIELD, ILLINOIS 60093 (847) 441-2687 FAX (8471 831-1406 E-MAIL: marty@blumenthallaw.com ADMITIED IN ILLINOIS AND WISCONSIN CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT Attention Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430, Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000 Hearing Docket Federal AviationAdministration 800 Independence Ave, S_W_ Washington, DC 20591

re: National Power Corporation AGL-7B 2010-GL-70-0212 Via Regular and CertifiedMail 7010 0290 0001 7916 5590
Dear Sir/Madam: Pursuant to 14 CFR 13 .16 (g) (2) (ii) National Power Corporationhereby requests a formal hearing inthis matter. Sincerely,

cc: Jeffrey A_ Klang ·Kate Barber Ira A!port 

# RECEIVED AUG t 

## 32013



# .HEARING DOCKET
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 373 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                 House Calendar No. 134
107th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 373

                          [Report No. 107-381]

   Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3924) to authorize 
                 telecommuting for Federal contractors.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

               March 20 (legislative day, March 19), 2002

   Mr. Sessions, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following 
resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3924) to authorize 
                 telecommuting for Federal contractors.

    Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution 
the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the 
House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of 
the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3924) to authorize 
telecommuting for Federal contractors. The first reading of the bill 
shall be dispensed with. General debate shall be confined to the bill 
and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the 
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Government 
Reform. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the five-minute rule. The bill shall be considered as read. 
During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition on the basis 
of whether the Member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed 
in the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that purpose 
in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed shall be considered as 
read. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the 
Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such 
amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question shall be 
considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final 
passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with 
or without instructions.

                                                 House Calendar No. 134

107th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                              H. RES. 373

                          [Report No. 107-381]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

   Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3924) to authorize 
                 telecommuting for Federal contractors.

_______________________________________________________________________

               March 20 (legislative day, March 19), 2002

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
```
# U.S. service member dies in helicopter crash in Logar Province, Afghanistan

/ Published Oct. 28, 2017
Kabul, Afghanistan, 
E-Mail:   pressoffice@hq.rs.nato.int RS Website:  http://www.rs.nato.int RS Facebook:  http://www.facebook.com/ResoluteSupport RS Twitter:  http://www.twitter.com/ResoluteSupport
This opinion is subject to administrative correction before final disposition.

Before 

STEPHENS, DEERWESTER, and COGLEY

Appellate Military Judges

_________________________

UNITED STATES

Appellee

v.

David W. MARTINEZ

Machinist’s Mate (Nuclear) Second Class (E-5), U.S. Navy

Appellant

No. 202000212

Decided: 31 March 2021

Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary

Military Judge:

Kimberly Kelly (arraignment)

Ann K. Minami (trial)

Sentence adjudged 28 May 2020 by a general court-martial convened 

at Naval Base Kitsap, Washington, consisting of a military judge 

sitting alone. Sentence in the Entry of Judgment: reduction to E-1, 

confinement for 16 months, and a bad-conduct discharge.

For Appellant: 

Major Brian L. Farrell, USMCR

For Appellee:

Brian K. Keller, Esq.

_________________________

This opinion does not serve as binding precedent under 

NMCCA Rule of Appellate Procedure 30.2(a).
United States v. Martinez, NMCCA No. 202000212

Opinion of the Court

2

_________________________

PER CURIAM:

After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of 

error, we have determined that the findings and sentence are correct in law 

and fact and that no error materially prejudicial to Appellant’s substantial 

rights occurred. Uniform Code of Military Justice arts. 59, 66, 10 U.S.C. 

§§ 859, 866.

The findings and sentence are AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT:

RODGER A. DREW, JR.

Clerk of Court
#### Braley *& a. v.*Simonds.

If an administrator, under a license from the judge of probate, sells and convoys an equity of redemption in lands whereof he is seized of the unincumbered fee, nothing passes by his deed.

Writ ok Entry. The plaintiffs are the heirs at law of Jesse Braley. The defendant claims under a deed from the administrator of Jesse Braley’s estate. April 8, 1874, Jesse conveyed the demanded premises to J ames and Exelia Braley, upon condition that the deed should be void if he should support James and Exelia, and the survivor of them, during their natural lives. James died January 5, 1875; Jesse, July 24, 1875; and Exelia, February 16, 1876. Jesse and his heirs or administrator fully performed the condition. July 16, 1876, a license was granted to the administrator of Jesse’s estate to sell the right in equity in the demanded premises, subject to the mortgage or conditional deed of April 3, 1874; and he accordingly sold and conveyed the same to the defendant. The court ordered judgment for the plaintiffs, and the defendant excepted.

*IT. FI.*Perkins, *J. Y.*Mugridge, and *A. W. Silsiy,*for the plaintiffs.

*W. T. Sf II. F. Norris*and *Sulloway Sf*Topliff, for the defendant.

*370Carpenter, J.

The condition of the deed having been fully-performed, the unincumbered fee in the demanded premises was at the date of the license vested in the administrator under the statute, for the purpose of selling the same to pay the debts of the deceased. The fee did not pass to the defendant, because the administrator was not authorized to sell, and did not undertake to sell or to convey it; the right to redeem from the deed of April 3, 1874, or to perform its condition, did not pass, because no such right existed. What remedies the defendant may have is a question not raised by the case.

*Exceptions overruled.*

Stanley, J., did not sit: the others concurred.
H. Res. 299

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

November 30, 2001.

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall

be in order to consider the conference report to accompany

the bill (H.R. 2299) making appropriations for the Department of Transportation and related agencies for the fiscal

year ending September 30, 2002, and for other purposes. All

points of order against the conference report and against its

consideration are waived. The conference report shall be considered as read.

Attest:

Clerk.
#### In the Matter of Mary Clarissa Annett.—

Decree and order affirmed, with costs against the appellant. Opinion by

Daniels, J.
exv10w17



 






Exhibit 10.17




EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT




     The undersigned and AdStar, Inc., hereby agree that upon the effective date of the new
Employment Agreement between them to be executed on the date hereof, the annual rate of
compensation specified therein shall be reduced by five percent (5%) to a rate of $202,160 per
annum, such reduction to continue until 10 days after the undersigned provides written notice to
AdStar of the revocation of this voluntary salary reduction, or in the absence of notice, until the
expiration of the term of the Agreement.



Dated: December 21, 2005




	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	AdStar, Inc.
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	by:	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 
	Eli Rousso

	 	 	 	Leslie Bernhard,

Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 24.14
                      POWER OF ATTORNEY


The undersigned, as President and Chief Executive Officer of
West  Texas Utilities Company (the "Company"), hereby makes,
constitutes  and  appoints R. Russell  Davis  his  true  and
lawful  attorneys-in-fact and agents, with  full  power  and
authority  to  execute  in the name and  on  behalf  of  the
undersigned, in any and all capacities, the Company's Annual
Report  on  Form  10-K for 1995 and any and  all  amendments
thereto,  to be filed under the Securities Exchange  Act  of
1934,  as  amended, and any other documents and  instruments
incidental thereto, and to file the same, with all  exhibits
thereto and all documents in connection therewith, with  the
Securities and Exchange Commission, hereby granting to  such
attorney-in-fact,  and agent, full power  and  authority  of
substitution and revocation in the premises and  full  power
and authority to do and perform each and every act and thing
requisite  and  necessary  to  be  done  in  and  about  the
premises,  as  fully  for all intents and  purposes  as  the
undersigned might or could do in person and hereby ratifying
and  confirming all that such attorneys-in-fact  and  agent,
may  do  or  cause  to be done by virtue of  this  Power  of
Attorney.

IN  WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto executed this Power  of
Attorney this 23rd day of January, 1996.



                              Glenn Files






Subscribed and sworn to before me this 23rd day of  January,
1996 by Glenn Files.

                              Martha Murray
                              Notary Public

My Commission Expires:
11-19-96
# 2018

# 2017

# 2016

# 2015

# 2014

# 2013

# 2012

# 2011

# 2010

# 2009

# 2008

# 2007

# 2006

# 2005

# 2004

# 2003

# 2002

# 2001

# 2000

# 1999

# 1998

# 1997

# 1996

# 1995

# 1994

# 1993

# 1992
# table1a-2023Q4

U.S. Census Bureau		

# table1b-2023Q4

U.S. Census Bureau		

# table1c-2023Q4

U.S. Census Bureau		

# table2a-2023Q4

U.S. Census Bureau		

# table2b-2023Q4

U.S. Census Bureau
**Exhibit 10.ww**

 

**Adopted pursuant toresolutions of theCinergy Corp. Benefits Committee onOctober 10, 2003**

 

**AMENDMENT TO THECINERGY CORP. NON-UNION EMPLOYEES’ PENSION PLAN**

 

The CinergyCorp. Non-Union Employees’ Pension Plan, as amended and restated effectiveJanuary 1, 2003, is hereby amended, effective for compensation received afterDecember 1, 2003.

 

**(1)           Explanationof Amendment**

 

The amendmentcaps the amount of annual “EMBU” bonuses included in earnings under the Plan.

 

**(2)****                                 Amendment**

 

Section 1.12of the Plan is hereby amended to provide as follows:

 

““AnnualPerformance Cash Award” means, with respect to an Employee, the cash awardreceived by the Employee under the provisions of an Employer’s annual bonus orincentive pay plan or program, including, but without limitation because ofenumeration, the Cinergy Annual Incentive Plan, the Cinergy Non-UnionEmployees’ Incentive Plan, or any successor plan; except that for an Employeewho is a participant in the Energy Merchant Business Unit Annual IncentivePlan, (i) the amount of the “Annual Performance Cash Award” that may be takeninto account under the Plan for a Plan Year shall not exceed the Employee’srate of annual Base Salary or rate of annual Base Wage, as applicable, as ofthe last day of the performance period for which the Annual Performance CashAward is calculated and (ii) for purposes of clarity, any amount payable underthe Energy Merchant Business Unit Annual Incentive Plan that is automaticallydeferred until a subsequent Plan Year shall not be considered as part of theEmployee’s “Annual Performance Cash Award.”

 

IN WITNESSWHEREOF, Cinergy Corp. has caused this Amendment to be executed and approved byits duly authorized officer, effective as of the date set forth herein.

 

 
|   | By:    | /s/ Timothy J. Verhagen           |   |
|--------|--------|-----------------------------------|--------|
|   |   |                              |
|   |   | Timothy J. Verhagen               |
|   |   | Vice President of Human Resources |

 

----