alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Order entered November 27, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-00529-CV

HAMPDEN CORPORATION, ET AL., Appellants

V.

REMARK, INC. ET AL., Appellees

On Appeal from the 366th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 366-00342-06

ORDER

Before the Court is appellees’ November 8, 2013 third motion for an extension of time to 

file a brief. Appellees’ brief was due on November 8, 2013. Appellees request an extension of 

“four or five days.” As of today’s date, appellees have not filed a brief. We GRANT appellees’ 

motion TO THE EXTENT that appellees shall file their brief on or before DECEMBER 9, 

2013. We caution appellees that if they fail to file a brief on or before December 9, 2013, the 

case will be submitted without an appellees’ brief.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS 

JUSTICE
---

|Exhibit 32.1                                 
|---------------------------------------------
|                                             
|CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO                    
|                                             
|18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350                       
|                                             
|AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO                       
|                                             
|SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Christian Brule, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Sunergy, Inc., for the fiscal quarter
ended September 30, 2007 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information
contained in the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB fairly presents in all material
respects the financial condition and results of operations of Sunergy, Inc.

|Date: November 14, 2007 | By: /s/ Christian Brule          
|----------------------- | ---------------------------------
|                        | Christian Brule, President, Chief
|                        | Executive Officer and Principal  
|                        | Executive Officer                





---
BEFORE THE 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Agreements Adopted by the Traffic 

Conferences of the International Air 

Transport Association 

OST-2011-0221 

APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF AGREEMENTS 

BY THE 

INTERNATIONAL AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION 

lATA AGREEMEN£NTT APPROVE APPROVED & IMMUNIZE IMMUNIZEDy^ 

DOCKET OST-. 

This approval and grant of antitrust immunity is subject, where applicable, 

to conditions previously imposed. 

This action is effective after 7 days unless a petition is filed under 

14 CFR 385.30 or a review is undertaken on the Department's own tyiotion. 

In view of the agreement's noncontroversial nature and the availability of 

the abovp-prpcedure, thsPf- ^ pgpejtjil 14 CFR 303.42 is waived. 

30 November 2011 

Communications with respect to 

this document should be sent to 

Douglas E. Lavin 

Regional Vice President - North America 

International Air Transport Association 

1776 K.St.N.W. #12'^ Floor 

Washington DC 20006 
Summary DOCKET: OST-2011-0221 US DOT ORDER: pending 

Date: 

Filing fee / lATA Acct: 

US/UST involved: 

30 November 2011 

USD 61 / 0000-06 

No 

End of Government Filing Period: 16 December 2011 

Meeting site, date: SIN, 14 Oct 2011 

Intended effective date: 30 January 2012 

Agreement: Composite Passenger Tariff Coordinating Conference 

Singapore, 14 October 2011 

Composite Resoiutions 01 Oo 

Intended Effective Date: 30 January 2012 

(Memo PTC COMP 1655) 

R1 01 Oo 

Composite Passenger Tariff Coordinating Conference 

Singapore, 14 October 2011 

•Minutes 

(Memo PTC COMP 1656)
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 57 (Monday, March 26, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 14110]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-5438]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings 
required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available 
for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested 
persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated 
in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the 
acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether 
the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards 
in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, 
nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States. 
Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained 
from the National Information Center website at http://www.ffiec.gov/nic/.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the 
offices of the Board of Governors not later than April 20, 2007.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas (W. Arthur Tribble, Vice 
President) 2200 North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201-2272:
    1. SWNB Bancorp, Inc., Houston, Texas; to acquire 100 percent of 
the voting shares of Nevada National Bank, Las Vegas, Nevada, a de novo 
bank.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 21, 
2007.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. E7-5438 Filed 3-23-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
AD Economic Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-XXXX-XXXX Directorate ID: 2010-SW-060-AD

Helicopter Model: Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH (Eurocopter) Model MBB-BK-117 C-2 Helicopters

Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 107 Helicopters in the US Registry.

Reason: Reduced intermediate gear box (IGB) bevel gear service life.

Costs:

Parts per Helicopter 0

Labor per Helicopter

(0.5 x $85/work-hour)

$43 to inspect to determine if IGB is affected.

Other (Explain)

Total Cost per Helicopter $43 

Total US Fleet Cost $4,601 (inspections only)

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No ()

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No ()

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

Yes ( ) No ()

Project Engineer: Chinh Vuong
#### JASPER C. GOULD, *ET AL.,*PLAINTIFFS-PETITIONERS, v. AMERICAN WATER WORKS SERVICE CO., INC., *ET AL.,*DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

*Messrs. Stryker, Tams <& Dill, Mr. Burtis W. Horner*and *Mr. John F. Di Lorenzo, Jr.*for the petitioners.

*Messrs. McCord, Farrell, Eynon & Munyon*for the respondents.

January 16, 1968.

Granted.
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v CHARLES CRONEY, Jr., Airman Apprentice, U. S. Navy, Appellant

20 USCMA 292, 43 CMR 132

No. 23,616

January 22, 1971

*Commander Maitland G. Freed,*JAGC, USN, was on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Commander Michael F. Fasanaro, Jr.,*JAGC, USN, was on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

Darden, Judge:

In accordance with his pleas of guilty, the appellant was convicted by special court-martial of four unauthorized absences and of breaking restriction. He was sentenced to a bad-conduct discharge, confinement at hard labor for four months and fifteen days, forfeiture of $50.00 per month for five months, and reduction to the pay grade of E-l. The convening authority approved the sentence without reduction; however, the supervisory authority approved only a bad-conduct discharge, confinement at hard labor for four months, forfeiture of $50.00 per month during confinement, and reduction in grade. Later a panel of the Court of Military Review set aside the findings and the sentence and authorized a rehearing. The Government then filed a successful motion for reconsideration for a hearing en banc. On September 2, 1970, the Court of Military Review rendered an en banc decision reversing the decision of the panel and affirming the findings and the sentence as approved below. We granted review to consider whether Article 66, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 866, authorized a “rehearing before the Court of Military Review en banc,” following a panel decision in the same case.

This same question was decided in United States v Chilcote, 20 USCMA 283, 43 CMR 123 (1971). We there determined that the “unembellished words of Article 66(a) of the Code do not support authority for en banc re*293consideration of a panel decision,” and that the authority contained in this Article was not substantively enlarged by the provisions of Article 66 (f) “which permit the Judge Advocates General to prescribe uniform rules of procedure for proceedings in and before courts of military review.” United States v Chilcote, supra, at page 286.

The en banc decision of the United States Navy Court of Military Review is, therefore, reversed. The record is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Navy for action not inconsistent with this opinion.

Chief Judge Quinn and Judge Ferguson concur.
Opinion filed September 17, 2015

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals 

___________

No. 11-15-00101-CV

___________

IN THE INTEREST OF J.R.I., A CHILD

On Appeal from the County Court at Law

Midland County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. FM 56,350

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

This is an appeal from an order in which the trial court terminated the parental 

rights of the mother and the father of J.R.I. The father filed a notice of appeal; the 

mother did not. We dismiss the appeal.

The father’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and a 

supporting brief in which he professionally and conscientiously examines the record 

and applicable law and states that he has concluded that the appeal is frivolous. The 

brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by 

presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no 

arguable grounds to be advanced. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406–08
2

(Tex. Crim. App. 2008); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel 

Op.] 1978). In this regard, the practice recognized in Anders for court-appointed 

counsel to seek a withdrawal from a frivolous appeal applies to parental termination 

proceedings involving appointed counsel. In re R.M.C., 395 S.W.3d 820 (Tex. 

App.—Eastland 2013, no pet.); see In re K.D., 127 S.W.3d 66, 67 (Tex. App.—

Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, no pet.).

Appellant’s counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the brief and the 

motion to withdraw and informed Appellant of his right to review the record and file 

a pro se response to counsel’s brief.

1

In compliance with Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 

313, 318–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014), counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the 

reporter’s record and a form motion to file in this court to obtain access to the 

appellate record. We note that Appellant has not filed the motion in this court, nor 

has he filed a pro se response in this court. We conclude that Appellant’s counsel 

has satisfied his duties under Anders, Schulman, and Kelly.

Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have 

independently reviewed the record, and we agree that the appeal is without merit and 

should be dismissed. See Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409. Accordingly, we grant the

motion to withdraw filed by Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel.

Additionally, we order counsel to notify Appellant of the disposition of this appeal 

and the availability of discretionary review in the Texas Supreme Court. Counsel is 

directed to send Appellant a copy of the opinion and judgment within five days after 

the opinion is handed down, along with notification of his right to file a pro se 

petition for review under TEX. R. APP. P. 53. Likewise, this court advises Appellant

that he may file a petition for review pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 53. 

 

1By letter, this court granted Appellant thirty days in which to exercise his right to file a response 

to counsel’s brief.
3

The motion to withdraw is granted, and the appeal is dismissed. 

PER CURIAM

September 17, 2015

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson, J., and Bailey, J.
Exhibit 23

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (Registration No. 333-33974) pertaining to the
Apropos Technology, Inc. 2000 Omnibus Incentive Plan and the Apropos Technology, Inc. Employee Stock Purchase Plan of 2000, of our report dated January 29, 2004, except for
Note 13, as to which the date is February 25, 2004, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Apropos Technology, Inc. included in the Annual Report
(Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2003.

|                                 |  | /s/ Ernst & Young LLP
|-------------------------------- |  | ---------------------
|Chicago, Illinois
March 26, 2004 |  |                      

---

QuickLinks
##### 



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (1)
    
    The Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and
 (2)
    
    The information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of Marlin Business Services Corp.
 Date: November 6, 2006
 /s/ Daniel P. Dyer

Daniel P. DyerChief Executive Officer/s/ Lynne C. Wilson

Lynne C. WilsonChief Financial Officer
& Senior Vice President(Principal Financial Officer)
#### Josephine Robinson et al., Plaintiffs, v Jewish Hospital and Medical Center of Brooklyn et al., Defendants. Jewish *329Hospital and Medical Center of Brooklyn et al., Third-Party Plaintiffs-Respondents, v Anesthesiology Service et al., Third-Party Defendants-Respondents. Jewish Hospital and Medical Center of Brooklyn et al., Third-Party Plaintiffs-Respondents, v Adel Aziz, Third-Party Defendant-Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 1010]

—Motion by the first and second third-party plaintiffs-respondents to strike points II and III of the second third-party defendant-appellant’s reply brief on the ground that those points improperly raise a new substantive issue.

Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it is

Ordered that the motion is denied.

The reply brief did not improperly raise a new substantive issue *(cf, People v Minota,*137 AD2d 837; *State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v LiMauro,*103 AD2d 514, 521-522, *affd*65 NY2d 369). Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Sullivan and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur. *[See,*136 Mise 2d 880.]
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 58 (Tuesday, March 27, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14269-14270]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-5517]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL05-146-005]


Independent Energy Producers Association v. Independent System 
Operator Corporation; Notice of Compliance Filing

March 21, 2007.
    Take notice that on March 15, 2007, The California Independent 
System Operator Corporation filed a compliance filing pursuant to the 
Commission Order issued on February 13, 2007, 118 FERC ] 61,096.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. 
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of 
that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies

[[Page 14270]]

of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b5f3f0e7f6fadbd9dcdbd0e6c0c5c5dac7c1f5d3d0c7d69bd2dac3"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1d5b584f5e5273717473784e686d6d726f695d7b786f7e337a726b">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on April 5, 2007.

Philis J. Posey,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-5517 Filed 3-26-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Docket Number: FAA- 2013 - 0465 **Contacts.** With whom outside the FAA has this proposal been discussed?

Organization Person Contacted **Date** Response **National Business Aircraft Association Eli Cotti**  5/10/11 **Regional Airline Associatio n**  5/10/11 **Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association Robert Hackman**  5/10/11 **ATA Joe White**  5/10/11
### IN THE NINTH COURT OF APPEALS

_____________________ _____

09

- 17

- 00326

- CR

__________________________

Appeal from the 258th District Court of Polk County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 24667



### MANDATE

TO THE 258TH DISTRIC T COURT OF POLK COUN TY, GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals, on October 18, 2017, the cause came upon

appeal to revise or reverse your judgment was determined; and therein our said

Court made its order in these words:

“ THE NINTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on

appeal, concludes that the appeal should be dismissed. IT IS THEREFORE

ORDERED, in accordance with the Court’s opinion, that the appeal is

DISMISSED

. ”

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to ob serve the order of our said

Court in this behalf, and in all things have it duly recognized, obeyed and executed.

BY ORDER OF THE NINTH COURT OF APPEALS, with the Seal thereof

affixed, at the City of Beaumont, Texas, this December 12, 2017.

CAROL ANNE HARLEY

CLERK OF THE COURT Ex Parte Billy Wayne Barton, Appellant
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Louis Perez, Appellant.

[634 NYS2d 71]

—Judgment, Supreme *259Court, Bronx County (Joseph Cerbone, J.), rendered February 3, 1994, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of *71⁄2*to 15 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s claim that the trial court improperly admitted evidence of an uncharged crime is without merit. The police witness testified that immediately prior to the charged sale, defendant removed something from a plastic bag in a garbage pail, placed the item in his pocket, and subsequently gave something to a man who approached him in a car. Even assuming that the testimony showed the commission of an uncharged crime, the evidence was admissible to prove intent to sell, a requisite element of a charged crime, and was interwoven with the narrative of the entire incident *(People v Hernandez,*216 AD2d 11). We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Ross, Williams and Tom, JJ.
Case No. 9,837.

#### MORRIS v. SUMMERL.

[2 Wash. C. C. 203.] 1

Circuit Court, D. Pennsylvania.

Oct Term, 1808.

Principal and Aoent — Securing Insurance-Neglect — Liability of Agent — Premium.

If one merchant is in the habit of effecting insurances for another, and neglects to have the *830same done, when ordered, he is himself answerable for the loss, as if he was the insurer, and he is entitled to the premium.

[Cited in Manny v. Dunlap, Case No. 9,047; Marquardt v. French, 53 Fed. 606.1

At law.

1

 [Originally published from the MSS. of Hon. Bushrod Washington, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, under the supervision of Richard Peters, Jr., Esq.]

THE COURT

charged the jury, in this case, that if one merchant is in the habit of effecting insurances for his correspondent, and is directed to make an insurance, and neglects to do so, he is himself answerable for the losses, as insurer, and is entitled to a premium, as such. That the amount of loss, for which an underwriter who had subscribed the policy, would have been answerable, is the only measure of damages against him. If he can' excuse himself, for not having effected the insurance, he is answerable for nothing; if he cannot excuse himself, he is then answerable, for the whole.

Verdict for plaintiff.

An exception was taken to this charge, and a writ of error sued; but in February 1809, the judgment was affirmed in the supreme court. [Case unreported.]
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

OFFICE OF

SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY

RESPONSE

Note to docket

December 23, 2014

Re: EPA-HQ-SFUND-2014-0733 - Technical Amendment to Update Data Management 

System Nomenclature, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

On December 2, 2014, the EPA received the following comment on the Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for the technical amendment to the National Oil and 

Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) to update the data 

management system nomenclature, “The authority section for this regulation cites 33 

USC 1321(c)(2). This is incorrect. That section is about Discharges Posing Substantial 

Threat to Public Health or Welfare. The correct citation should be to 33 USC 1321(d) 

which is about the National Contingency Plan. When the executive branch regulates, it 

is required to state the authority for its regulation.”

In response, the commenter correctly identified the first authority citation as pertaining 

to discharges to waterways which pose a substantial threat to public health and welfare,

which is relevant to the implementation of the NCP. However, the commenter did not 

consider the remainder of the authority citation, the second of which, 42 USC 9601-

9657, includes the entire NCP at 42 USC 9605. The EPA was well within its stated 

authority to amend the NCP for this data system nomenclature update.

Further, the NPRM states that if adverse comments are received on this action, the EPA 

will withdraw the proposed rule and address all relevant public comments before 

proceeding with a final rule. Because the above comment does not address the action 

to update the NCP’s data system nomenclature, and because the EPA clearly stated its 

authority for this regulation, we are not considering this an adverse comment and are 

proceeding with the final rule.