alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Arlington • Bedford • Carrollton • Dallas • Fort Worth (Hulen) • Fort Worth (Main St.) • Fort Worth (Summit) • San Antonio

Midland/Odessa • Houston/Clear Lake • Plano • Grand Prairie • Mesquite • Texarkana • Weatherford

1300 Summit Avenue, Suite 650, Fort Worth, Texas 76102 Tel: (817) 276-6000 Fax: (817) 276-6010 

December 12, 2017 

Court of Appeals Second District of Texas

Attn: Court Coordinator 

RE: Christi Schreiber, et al vs. Board of Adjustment of the City of Fort Worth, et al 

 Court of Appeals Number: 02-17-00107-CV

 Trial Court Case Number: 153-284091-16 

Dear Court Coordinator: 

Please be advised that I have set aside the following dates for vacation and request that no 

hearings, trials or other matters be set on these dates in the above cause:

December 25, 2017 – January 12, 2018 

Thank you for your attention in this matter. By copy of this letter I am notifying all 

counsel of this request. 

 Sincerely, 

 

 Michael Handy

MH/mgr

ACCEPTED

02-17-00107-CV

SECOND COURT OF APPEALS

FORT WORTH, TEXAS

12/12/2017 3:02 PM

DEBRA SPISAK

CLERK

 RECEIVED IN 2nd COURT OF APPEALS FORT WORTH, TEXAS 12/12/2017 3:02:17 PM DEBRA SPISAK Clerk
No. 46760.

#### Protests 997240-G, etc., of Ciba Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

It was stipulated that 34 percent of the Ultravon W C Pat. is subject to tax. In accordance therewith it was held that the merchandise in question is dutiable at 34/ioo of 3 cents per pound on the entire weight under section 701 as claimed.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, August 11, 2020.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, August 11, 2020

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A20D0432. IN THE INTEREST OF B. D. M. et al., CHILDREN (MOTHER).

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

2000004 2000006
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8240 

To require a GAO audit of the information technology infrastructure of 

the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commission’s handling 

of data. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 2, 2024 

Mrs. WAGNER (for herself, Mr. GARBARINO, Mr. MEUSER, Mr. HUIZENGA, 

and Mr. EMMER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To require a GAO audit of the information technology infrastructure of the Securities and Exchange Commission 

and the Commission’s handling of data. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘SEC Cybersecurity Act 

5 of 2024’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 8240 IH

1 SEC. 2. GAO AUDIT OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY INFRA2 STRUCTURE AND HANDLING OF DATA. 

3 The Comptroller General of the United States shall, 

4 not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of 

5 this Act— 

6 (1) perform an independent audit of the infor7 mation technology (IT) infrastructure of the Securi8 ties and Exchange Commission and the Commis9 sion’s handling of data, including— 

10 (A) a comparison of the Commission’s IT 

11 spending to other Federal financial regulators, 

12 including— 

13 (i) the total amount spent on IT 

14 equipment and services; and 

15 (ii) the amount of IT spending in pro16 portion to each regulator’s total spending; 

17 (B) examining the quality and effectiveness 

18 of the Commission’s IT contracting; 

19 (C) determining if the Commission’s data 

20 and cybersecurity systems and procedures are 

21 sufficient; and 

22 (D) examining any recent Commission IT 

23 or data events, such as breaches or hacks, that 

24 may have compromised the Commission’s IT in25 frastructure or exposed a vulnerability; and 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 8240 IH

1 (2) provide to the Commission, the Committee 

2 on Financial Services of the House of Representa3 tives, and the Committee on Banking, Housing, and 

4 Urban Affairs of the Senate a report containing— 

5 (A) all findings and determinations made 

6 in conducting the audit; and 

7 (B) recommendations for steps that can be 

8 taken to improve the Commission’s IT infra9 structure. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 08**  **- 8531** 

ORLANDO SMITH , Petitioner

– Appellant ,
v. WARDEN, BROAD RIVER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION , Respondent

– Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States Dist rict Court for the District of South Carolina , at Greenville
. R. Bryan Harwell , District Judge. ( 6:07

- cv - 00327

- RBH )

Submitted : July 2 6 , 2010 Decided: August 10, 2010

Before MOTZ and DUNCAN , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge
.
Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Orlando Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Henry Dargan McMaster, Attorney General, William Edgar Sa l ter, III, Assistant Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South C arolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Orlando Smith seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 22 54 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006)
. A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a consti tutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural

ru ling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Smith has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we d eny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not a id the decisional process.

DISMISSED
No. *55309.*

#### Caron Corporation et al. *v.*United States,

protests 158566-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
Docket No. FAA-2012-1034

 Contacts. With whom outside the FAA has this proposal been discussed? 

Organization Person Contacted Date Response 

National Business Aircraft Association Eli Cotti 8/24/10

Regional Airline Association Dave Lotterer

Connie

Arnold

8/24/10

Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association Robert Hackman 8/24/10

ATA Joe White 8/24/10
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. JOHN HOLLAND, DEFENDANT-PETITIONER.

*Mr. Peter Murray, Mr. Richard Newman*and *Mr. S. Arthur Bchimmel*for the petitioner.

*Mr. Joseph P. Lordi*and *Mr. Alan Bilber*for the respondent.

April 30, 1968.

Denied.
No. 53609.

protests 116048-K, etc. (New York).

#### Oscar J. Wile & Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

For the reasons stated in *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C. D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEFFERSON A. McGEE, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2598 LKK DAD PS

vs.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER,

et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed the above-entitled action. The matter was

referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 72-302(c)(21).

On August 23, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice to the parties that any

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within ten days. No objections

to the findings and recommendations have been filed.

The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be

supported by the record and by the magistrate judge's analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that:

/////

///// 

Case 2:04-cv-02598-LKK -DAD Document 134 Filed 09/20/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

1. The findings and recommendations filed August 23, 2005, are adopted in full;

2. Defendants’ motions to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) are granted as to all

defendants and this action is dismissed without further leave to amend.

DATED: September 19, 2005.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

/mcgee2598.jo

Case 2:04-cv-02598-LKK -DAD Document 134 Filed 09/20/05 Page 2 of 2
**Exhibit 31.2**I, Robert J. Messey, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Arch Western Resources, LLC;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e), and 15d-15(e)) and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.   Date: November 14, 2005     /s/ Robert J. Messey   Robert J. Messey  Vice President  44
ARTHUR ANDERSON LLP


                    REPORT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

To Fairbanks Capital Corp:

We have examined management's assertion about Fairbanks Capital Corp.'s
compliance with the minimum servicing standards identified in the Mortgage
Bankers Association of America's Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage
Bankers ("USAP") as of and for the year ended June 30, 1999, included in the
accompanying management assertion. Management is responsible for Fairbanks
Capital Corp.'s compliance with those minimum servicing standards. Our
responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion about the
entity's compliance based on our examination.

Our examination was made in accordance with standards established by the
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and, accordingly, included
examining, on a test basis, evidence about Fairbanks Capital Corp.'s compliance
with the minimum servicing standards and performing such other procedures as we
considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our examination
provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a
legal determination on Fairbanks Capital Corp's compliance with the minimum
servicing standards.

In our opinion, management's assertion that Fairbanks Capital Corp. complied
with the aforementioned minimum servicing standards as of and for the year ended
June 30, 1999 is fairly stated, in all material respects.

/s/ Arthur Anderson LLP

Salt Lake City, Utah
August 26, 1999
#### Helen Douglass and V. E. Douglass v. Joe Sapotnick

173 So. 926.

Opinion Filed January 18, 1937.

*Ernest F. Housholder*for Plaintiffs in Error;

*Scarlett & Futch*and *Murray Sams,*for Defendant in Error;

Per Curiam.

This is a companion case to that case of Helen Douglass and V. E. Douglass v. Joe Sapotnick, Jr., a minor, by Joe Sapotnick, his next friend, and the judgment is reversed upon authority of the opinion and judgment in that case filed at the last term of the Court.

So ordered.

Reversed and remanded for new trial.

Ellis, C. J., and Whitfield, Terrell, Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.

Davis, J., dissents.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-20-00572-CV

R. Stephen McNally, Appellant

v.

Krystene Wormley Woodard, in her Capacity as Independent Executor of The Estate of 

Johnnie Sam Simpson Living Trust; Donna Barnes Ware; Henry Evans;

and Lois Jean Bradshaw Evans, Appellees

FROM THE 201ST DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

NO. D-1-GN-94-009808, THE HONORABLE JAN SOIFER, JUDGE PRESIDING

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

Appellant R. Stephen McNally desires to challenge an order denying his Motion 

to Retain Cause on Docket. On June 25, 2021, we sent McNally a letter asking him to explain 

how this Court may exercise jurisdiction over his appeal. McNally timely filed a response 

indicating that he had “made a diligent search for authority that such motion denials would be 

appealable, but ha[d] found none.” Nor are we aware of any authority allowing appellate review 

of the disposition of such a motion. Accordingly, we dismiss McNally’s appeal for want of 

jurisdiction. See Tex. Const. art. V, § 6(a); Jack B. Anglin Co. v. Tipps, 842 S.W.2d 266, 272 

(Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding); Branch L. Firm L.L.P. v. Osborn, 532 S.W.3d 1, 10 (Tex. App.—

Houston [14th Dist.] 2016, pet. denied). 
2

__________________________________________

Edward Smith, Justice

Before Justices Goodwin, Baker, and Smith

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: July 22, 2021
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-13-00804- CR

Kait lyn L ucret ia Ritcher son, App ellant

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F TRAVIS CO UNTY, 331 ST JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. D-1 -DC- 11- 3026 63, H ONO RAB LE DAVID CRAIN, J UDGE P RESIDING

O R D E R
P ER CURIAM

Appellant filed her notice of appeal on November 22 , 2 0 1 3 , and the cler k’s record

wa s filed on Marc h 10, 2014. On April 8, we sent court repor ter Raquel Koche r no t i ce t h at t h e repor ter’s rec ord was overdue , s et t i n g a new deadline of April 18, and telling her that if she was
u n able to meet the new deadline, she was to provide a written explanation for the d el ay an d an
es t i m ate of when the rec ord would be filed. On May 13, afte r having rec eived no response , we called and left a messag e inquiring about the status of the rec ord. T o d at e, M s . Koche r has not replied to our inquirie s , nor has the rec ord been filed. Ms. Koche r is there fore order ed to file the

re p o rt er’ s rec ord no later than J une 27, 2014. Fa ilure to file the rec ord by that date will result i n Ms. Koche r being called befor e the Court to show cause why she should not be held in contempt for violating our

order

.I t is ordere d J une 9, 2014.

Be fore J ustices Pury ear , Goodwin, and F ield

2
Skip NavigationUSGS HomeContact USGSSearch USGS
Woods Hole Science Center
GIS Compilation of Data Collected from the Pulley Ridge Deep Coral Reef Region OF 2005-1089
OF       2005-1089

Disc       Contents

Introduction

Surficial       Geology

GIS/Visualization

Data       Catalog

References       Cited

Acknowledgments

Contacts
Acknowledgments:
We wish to thank the captains and crews of the vessels that were       instrumental in collecting these data. This includes the R/V Suncoaster,       R/V Bellows, M/V Spree, and the NOAA vessel Gordon Gunter. This work would       not have been accomplished without the technical expertise of Charles       Worley and Dann Blackwood of the U.S. Geological Survey and Brian Donahue       of the University of South Florida. This Open-File report greatly       benefited from the reviews by Page Valentine and Julia Knisel. Funding for       this research was provided by the U.S. Geological Survey Coastal and       Marine Geology Program. 
Skip       Navigation
AccessibilityFOIAPrivacyPolicies and       Notices

U.S. Department of the Interior | U.S. Geological SurveyURL:       woodshole.er.usgs.gov/pubs/of2005-1089/htmldocs/acks.htmPage Contact       Information: WHSC       WebmasterThis page last modified on Monday, 14-Jan-2013 12:50:15       EST
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17

- 10807 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.

RYAN JAMES JEFFREY

,

Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 5:17

- CR

- 4

- 1

Before DAVIS, HAYNES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Ryan James Jeffrey

has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with
Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d
229 (5th Cir. 2011). Jeffrey h a s not filed a response. We have reviewed
counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We
concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous

* 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. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED April 17 , 2018
Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 17-10807 Document: 00514433136 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/17/2018No. 17

- 10807

2 issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw
is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 17-10807 Document: 00514433136 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/17/2018
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 499 

To amend the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000 to reauthorize 

the Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant Program, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 16, 2023 

Mr. CORNYN (for himself, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. GRAHAM, Ms. KLOBUCHAR, 

Mr. CRAPO, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. BLUMENTHAL, Mr. GRASSLEY, Ms. CORTEZ MASTO, Ms. ERNST, Mrs. SHAHEEN, Mrs. BLACKBURN, Mr. COONS, Ms. CANTWELL, and Mr. TILLIS) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the 

Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 

2000 to reauthorize the Debbie Smith DNA Backlog 

Grant Program, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Debbie Smith Act of 

5 2023’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION. 

7 Section 2(j) of the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimi8 nation Act of 2000 (34 U.S.C. 40701(j)) is amended by 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 499 IS

1 striking ‘‘fiscal years 2019 through 2024’’ and inserting 

2 ‘‘fiscal years 2024 through 2029’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
Exhibit1033-ScheduleofDirectorCompensationJan2014


EXHIBIT 10.33




QUANTUM FUEL SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGIES WORLDWIDE, INC
NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR COMPENSATION
Each non-employee director receives the following compensation:  
Stock Awards:
1. Initial stock option grant for 2,500 shares on the date of such person’s appointment to the board of directors.
2.Annual stock option grant for 2,500 shares.
3.Annual restricted stock award of 1,000 shares. 
4. Nominating & Governance Committee has the discretion from time to time to recommend to the full board that the non-employee directors receive additional stock options and/or restricted stock awards.
Cash Compensation:
Annual Fees:
•All non-employee directors receive an annual retainer of $21,000.
• Audit Committee chair receives an annual fee of $14,000 and other audit committee members receive an annual fee of $3,500.
•Compensation Committee chair receives an annual fee of $7,000.
•Nominating and Governance Committee chair receives an annual fee of $3,500.
•Board Chair receives an annual fee of $25,000.
Meeting Fees:
• Non-employee directors receive a meeting fee of $1,500 for each regularly scheduled quarterly board meeting attended.
• Non-employee directors receive a meeting fee ranging from $700 to $1,500 (depending on length of meeting) for each special meeting attended.
• Committee members receive a meeting fee of $700 for each committee meeting attended.  If a director serves on multiple committees and attends more than one meeting on the same day, then the director receives a single meeting fee.  Also, if a committee meeting is held on the same day as a board meeting, then no committee meeting fee is paid.


Payment of Annual Fees, Meeting Fees and Grant of Annual Stock Awards:
Annual Fees are paid in four equal installments and are paid together with the Meeting Fees earned during the most recent quarter within a few weeks following the end of such quarter.  The grant date for the 2,500 stock options and 1,000 shares of restricted stock granted will be the date of that year’s annual meeting of stockholders.





EXHIBIT 10.33




Expenses:
Directors are also reimbursed their travel expenses incurred in connection with attending a meeting.