alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-50356

Summary Calendar

 

TAMMY WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

KENNETH S. APFEL, Commissioner

of Social Security,

Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. SA-96-CV-293

- - - - - - - - - -

January 13, 1998

Before JONES, SMITH and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Tammy Williams appeals from the district court’s judgment

affirming the denial of her application for supplemental security

income benefits. Williams argues that the decision of the

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) is not supported by substantial

evidence; that the ALJ failed to consider her IQ as a severe

mental impairment; that the ALJ failed to consider her complaints

in combination; that the ALJ failed to properly complete the
No. 97-50356 

-2-

Psychiatric Review Technique Form; that the ALJ failed to give

proper weight to the opinion of Williams’ treating physician; and

that the ALJ posed an inadequate hypothetical question to the

vocational expert. We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, the judgment is AFFIRMED for

essentially the reasons stated by the district court. See

Williams v. Callahan, No. SA-96-CV-293 (W.D. Tex. March 14,

1997).

AFFIRMED.
From: ldb.lanke57@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:16:47 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Linda Blankenship

Sugar Land, TX 77479
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 29, 2018

No. 04-18-00039-CV

IN RE DAIMLER TRUCKS NORTH AMERICA LLC

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

ORDER

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice 

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

On January 24, 2018, relator filed an unopposed Motion for Seal of Petition for Writ of 

Mandamus and Mandamus Record. We GRANT the motion and ORDER that relator’s Petition 

for Writ of Mandamus and Mandamus Record be filed under seal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.2(c)(3).

 

 PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO: ____________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court

 1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2014-CI-07361, styled Ricardo Garza, et al. v. Daimler Trucks North 

America, et al., pending in the 45th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Antonia Arteaga

presiding.
#### Evan Jones, Appellant, v. Morgan Jones, Respondent.

Judgment and orJor of allowance-reversed, with costs of this appeal, and stay of proceedings in the action ordered until the determination of the action pending between the plaintiff and John Jones.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-2000
<CASH>                                         102,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   77,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    219,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               618,000
<PP&E>                                       6,607,000
<DEPRECIATION>                             (3,576,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,820,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,572,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        34,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   (851,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,820,000
<SALES>                                     13,382,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            13,382,000
<CGS>                                       11,896,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               13,305,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               998,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             282,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (919,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (921,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (921,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.27)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.27)


</TABLE>
From: ree7ree63@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:11:17 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Trina Vigil

Bremerton, WA 98310
From: pcactx@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:10:49 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Phil Corson

Prescott, AZ 86305
#### Clayton W. Jenkins, Respondent, *v.*Simon Bishop, Appellant, Impleaded with Another.

*Jenkins*v. Bishop, 136 App. Div. 104, affirmed.

(Argued January 10, 1913;

decided January 28, 1913.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the third judicial department, entered June 13, 1910, modifying and affirming as modified a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term in an action to foreclose a mortgage.

*Walter A. Chambers*for appellant.

*Edgar T. Brackett*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs, on opinion of Chester, J., below.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Werner, Willard Bartlett, Hiscock, Chase, Collin and Hogan, JJ.
From: ctschet@php413.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:29:15 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Curtis Tschetter

Ogallala, NE 69153
<PAGE>   1


                                                                   EXHIBIT 12(b)



                             D&N CAPITAL CORPORATION
                Computation of ratio on earnings to fixed charges
                   and preferred stock dividend requirements

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                           For Six Months Ended
                                                             June 30, 1998 
                                                         (In thousands, except ratio):
                                                         -----------------------------
<S>                                                            <C>

Net income                                                       $    2,026


Fixed charges:
    Advisory fees                                                        63

Total fixed charges                                                      63

Earnings before fixed charges                                         2,089

Fixed charges, as above                                                  63

Preferred stock dividend requirements                                 1,362

Fixed charges including preferred
    stock dividends                                                   1,425

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges and
    preferred stock dividend requirements                              1.47

</TABLE>
IV 

House Calendar No. 246 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1318 

[Report No. 110–745] 

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5811) to amend title 44, United 

States Code, to require preservation of certain electronic records by 

Federal agencies, to require a certification and reports relating to Presidential records, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 8, 2008 

Mr. WELCH of Vermont, 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. 5811) to amend 

title 44, United States Code, to require preservation of 

certain electronic records by Federal agencies, to require 

a certification and reports relating to Presidential 

records, and for other purposes. 

1 Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution 

2 it shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 

3 5811) to amend title 44, United States Code, to require 

4 preservation of certain electronic records by Federal agenVerDate Aug 31 2005 23:01 Jul 08, 2008 Jkt 069200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\HR1318.RH HR1318

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 1318 RH 

1 cies, to require a certification and reports relating to Pres2 idential records, and for other purposes. All points of 

3 order against consideration of the bill are waived except 

4 those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The 

5 amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by 

6 the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform now 

7 printed in the bill shall be considered as adopted. The bill, 

8 as amended, shall be considered as read. All points of 

9 order against provisions of the bill, as amended, are 

10 waived. The previous question shall be considered as or11 dered on the bill, as amended, to final passage without 

12 intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally 

13 divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking mi14 nority member of the Committee on Oversight and Gov15 ernment Reform; and (2) one motion to recommit with 

16 or without instructions. 

17 SEC. 2. During consideration of H.R. 5811 pursuant 

18 to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the 

19 previous question, the Chair may postpone further consid20 eration of the bill to such time as may be designated by 

21 the Speaker. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
House Calendar No. 246 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1318 

[Report No. 110

–745] 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5811) 

other purposes. ports relating to Presidential records, and for eral agencies, to require a certification and represervation of certain electronic records by Fedto amend title 44, United States Code, to require 

JULY 8, 2008 

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
mm12-2112_8ke101.htm


Exhibit 10.1


Information Concerning Executive Compensation







It has been the policy of Leucadia National Corporation (the “Company”) since the current management took over in 1978 to emphasize performance based compensation through the payment of discretionary bonuses.







On December 18, 2012, the Company’s Board of Directors, upon the recommendation of the Compensation Committee, in consultation with Ian M. Cumming, Chairman of the Board, and Joseph S. Steinberg, President of the Company, approved annual salary increases (effective January 1, 2013) and discretionary 2012 cash bonuses for each of the Company’s executive officers who were included as named executive officers in the Company’s 2012 proxy statement (other than Mr. Cumming and Mr. Steinberg1 ).













	
Name

	 	
Base Salary in 2013

	 	 	
Bonus Award for 20122


	  	 	 	 	 	 	 
	  	 	 	 	 	 	 
	
Thomas E. Mara

	 	$	391,500	 	 	$	5,011,400	 
	  	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	
Joseph A. Orlando

	 	$	356,500	 	 	$	5,010,380	 
	  	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	
Justin R. Wheeler

	 	$	323,500	 	 	$	4,009,420	 












__________________________________  



1 Consistent with past practice, in addition to the bonuses previously awarded to Messrs. Cumming and Steinberg, additional bonus payments for 2012 pursuant to the Company’s Senior Executive Annual Incentive Bonus Plan will be considered by the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors at a Board of Directors meeting to be held following completion of the audit of the Company’s financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2012.




  

2 Includes an annual holiday bonus paid to all employees based on a percentage of salary of $11,400 for Mr. Mara, $10,380 for Mr. Orlando and $9,420 for Mr. Wheeler.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1330 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 1330

   Commending the recent decision of the Supreme Court of the United 
States in District of Columbia v. Heller for upholding the right of the 
  individual to keep and bear arms under the second amendment of the 
                             Constitution.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 10, 2008

 Mr. Sali (for himself, Mr. Franks of Arizona, Mrs. Drake, Mr. Chabot, 
 Mrs. Miller of Michigan, Mrs. Musgrave, Mrs. Blackburn, Mr. Miller of 
 Florida, Mr. David Davis of Tennessee, Mr. Wilson of South Carolina, 
Mr. Burton of Indiana, Mrs. Cubin, Mr. Hall of Texas, Mr. Gingrey, Mr. 
Bartlett of Maryland, Mr. Brady of Texas, Mr. Pearce, Mr. Scalise, Mr. 
Shuler, Mr. Buyer, and Mr. Calvert) submitted the following resolution; 
          which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   Commending the recent decision of the Supreme Court of the United 
States in District of Columbia v. Heller for upholding the right of the 
  individual to keep and bear arms under the second amendment of the 
                             Constitution.

Whereas the second amendment of the Constitution states, ``A well regulated 
        Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of 
        the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'';
Whereas James Madison stated, ``The right of the people to keep and bear . . . 
        arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the 
        body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural 
        defense of a free country. . . .'';
Whereas Samuel Adams once stated, ``[T]he said Constitution [shall] be never 
        construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the 
        press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the 
        United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms. 
        . . .'';
Whereas the right to keep and bear arms is now an indisputable individual right;
Whereas Congress must be vigilant to safeguard the second amendment, which is as 
        valuable today as it was at the birth of the Nation;
Whereas the Supreme Court opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller reflects the 
        view of our Founding Fathers that law-abiding citizens have the right as 
        individuals to defend their lives, families, and property; and
Whereas no laws shall infringe on the right of law-abiding citizens to keep and 
        bear arms: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives commends the recent 
decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in District of 
Columbia v. Heller for upholding the right of the individual to keep 
and bear arms under the second amendment of the Constitution.
                                 <all>
```
No. 504.

#### Martin et ux. *v.*Commissioner of Internal Revenue.

*Thomas S. Weary*for petitioners.

*Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Oberdorfer*and *Wayne G. Barnett*for respondent.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.

The Chief Justice is of the opinion that certiorari should be granted.