alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Opinion issued August 16, 2016 .

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01 - 09 - 00328 - CV

——————————— SAMSON LONE STAR LIM ITED PARTNERSHIP, N/ K/A SAMSON LONE

STAR, L.L.C. , Appella nt /Cross - Appellee V. CHARLES G. HOOKS, II I, I NDIVIDUALLY AND AS I NDEPENDENT EXECUTOR OF THE ESTA TE OF CHARLES G. HOO KS, JR., AS TRUSTEE OF THE SCOTT IRA MCKEEVER TRUST A ND THE DAVID WAYNE MCKEEVER TRUST , AND ON BEHALF OF C HAS. G. HOOKS & SON, A GENERAL PAR TNERSHIP, MCKEEVER PARTNERSHIP , LTD., AND CHA RLES G. HOOKS III AN D SUE ANN HOOKS, AS CO TRUSTEES UNDER THE W ILL OF CHARLES G. HO OKS, SR. ,

Appell e e s /Cross - Appellants On Appeal from the 60th District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Court Ca se No. B173008B
SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION2

In our opinion dat ed March 15, 2016, we suggested a remittitur of $2,620,475 .50 in unsupported fraud damages . We stated that if the appellees and

cross - appellants, Charles G. Hooks, III, Individually and as Independent Executor of the Estate of Charles G. Hooks, Jr., as Tru stee of the Scott Ira McKeever Trust and the David Wayne McKeever Trust, and on b ehalf of Chas. G. Hooks & Son, a General Partnership, McKeever Partnership, Ltd., and Charles G. Hooks III and Sue Ann Hooks, as Co

- Trustees u nder the Will of Charles G. Hooks , Sr. (collectively, “Hooks”), filed such remittitur within twenty days, we would modify the trial court’s judgment and affirm as modified. On March 29, 2016 , Hooks timely filed a consent to the remittitur and asked the Court to modify the trial court’s ju dgment consistent with our opinion in this matter. Accordingly, we vacate our judgment, but not our opinion, dated March 15, 2016, and modify the trial court’s judgment to delete $766,626.85 in “unpooling” damages; delete $2,620,475.50 in fraud damages rep resenting the formation

production damages and their associated late charges; modify the amount of most

favored

- nations damages to $431,450.71, consistent with the parties’ stipulation; and modify the post

-

judgment interest rate to reflect an 18% rate for past
- due royalties (i.e., the most

- favored

- nations damages) and a 5% interest rate for other recoveries
. See T EX . R. A PP . P . 46.3 (providing that court of appeals m a y suggest remittitur and if remittitur is timely filed, court must reform and affirm trial court’s3

judgment in accordance with remittitur). We further affirm the trial court’s judgment as modified. See id. This Court’s opinion of March 15, 2016, otherwise remains in effect.

Evelyn V. Keyes Justice Panel consists of Justices Keye s, Massengale, and Lloyd.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM BALANCE
SHEET AND INCOME STATEMENT AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   8-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-26-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           8,763
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   76,748
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,610
<INVENTORY>                                     11,323
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               120,928
<PP&E>                                          12,039
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,436
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 260,519
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           62,497
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            22
<OTHER-SE>                                     106,944
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   260,519
<SALES>                                        120,949
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               229,356
<CGS>                                          104,964
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  174,779
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                44,604<F1>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,490
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,669
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,512
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,157
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,157
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .18
<FN>
<F1>INCLUDES $4.3 MILLION RESTRUCTURING
</FN>


</TABLE>
Electronically FiledIntermediate Court of AppealsCAAP-11-000079423-AUG-201207:56 AM
July 15, 1957

A. R. D. 79.

#### *United States*v. *Dan Brechner, Jacob Brechner, Joseph Brechner, Herbert Brechner, a co-partnership doing business under the name and style of Dan Brechner & Co.*

Entered at New York, N. Y. A. R. D. 71. Motion by appellant.
No. 45249.

#### Protest 43592-K of Premier Peat Moss Corp. (New York.)

Opinion by

Evans, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of peat moss of the same character as that passed upon in *Peat Import Corp.*v. *United States*(4 Cust. Ct. 181, C. D. 319). The claim for free entaw under paragraph 1685 was therefore sustained.
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-121013 and333-128069), Form S-4 (No. 333-116378) and Form S-8 (Nos. 333-126471, 333-119094, 333-118058, 333-106383, 333-66346 and 333-43612) of our report dated February 9, 2006 relating to the consolidated financial statements, which appears in RITA MedicalSystems, Inc.’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005. 

 

/s/ Stonefield Josephson, Inc. 

 

San Francisco, California 

March 14, 2006
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Murphy THOMAS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. CR98-231.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

Jan. 6, 1999.

Earl Taylor, Dist. Atty., Opelousas, for State of Louisiana.

Harold Dewey Register, Jr., Lafayette, for Murphy Thomas.

Before THIBODEAUX, COOKS and WOODARD, Judges.

11WOODARD, Judge.

In *State v. Thomas,*98-231 (La. App. 3 Cir. 10/7/98), 720 So.2d 91, we remanded this case to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his right to a trial by jury. On November 6, 1998, the trial court held the required evidentiary hearing. The defendant testified that he had not waived his right to a jury trial and would have exer*670cised this right had he been given the opportunity.

When misdemeanor offenses are charged by separate bills of information and the aggregate penalty of the offenses exceeds six months imprisonment or a fíne of $1,000.00, a defendant is entitled to a jury trial. *State v. Hornung,*620 So.2d 816 (La.1993). At the time of his trial, the defendant had been charged by four separate charging instruments. His penalty exposure exceeded six months confinement.

As the defendant had not waived his right to trial by jury at his trial, his conviction is vacated. The sentence is set aside. This case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

CONVICTION VACATED. CASE REMANDED *FOR A*NEW TRIAL.
#### United States *v.*Berz Dry Goods Store

No. 6124.

Invoice dated Oaxaca, Mexico, April 9, 1943.

Certified May 7, 1943.

Entered at Dallas, Tex., May 25, 1943.

Entry No. 308-D.

(Decided April 3, 1945)

*Paul P. Bao,*Assistant Attorney General *(Samuel D. Specior,*special attorney), for the plaintiff.

No appearance by the defendant.

Cole, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement brings for determination the proper dutiable value of merchandise invoiced as “huaraches,” exported from Oaxaca, Mexico, in April 1943 and entered at the port of Dallas, Tex., in May of the same year.

The importer’s entered value of $6.50 (Mexican currency) per pair, plus cases and packing and stamp tax, was accepted by the appraiser as representative of the dutiable value of the merchandise. Subsequently, however, the collector appealed for reappraisement.

When the case was called for hearing at Dallas on February 23, 1945, Government counsel produced a letter from the importer, conceding the higher value claimed by the collector, which is based upon a subsequent transaction of identical merchandise between the same parties to the shipment in question.

On the undisputed facts, I hold the proper dutiable value of the huaraches in question to be $7 (Mexican currency) per pair, plus cost of “Container and shipping,” “Packing,” and “Stamps,” as invoiced. Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLANewsNews Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# Memorial Day a time to remember heritage, history, heroes

By DLA Public Affairs

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

Memorial DayhistoryHoliday
Before the Third Division,

March 24, 1943

No. 48131.

#### Protest 789345-G of I. W. Lung Co. (Boston).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

It was stipulated that certain of the merchandise in question consists of crude drugs the same in all material respects as those involved in *Oy Wo Tong Co.*v. *United States*(5 Cust. Ct. 70, C. D. 372). In accordance therewith the claim for free entry under paragraph 1669 was sustained as to those items.
No. 96-7837.

#### Jackson *v.*United States.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 55550.

#### Oxford University Press, N. Y., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 169500-K (New York).

Opinion by

Rao, J.

The protest was dismissed.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1531 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1531

  To provide a Federal regulatory moratorium, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 8, 2011

Mr. Johanns (for himself, Mr. McCain, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Paul, Mr. Johnson 
  of Wisconsin, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Thune, Mr. Barrasso, and Mr. Enzi) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
        Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To provide a Federal regulatory moratorium, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Two-Year Regulatory Freeze Act of 
2011''.

SEC. 2. FEDERAL REGULATORY MORATORIUM.

    Except as provided in section 3, no department or agency of the 
United States shall publish new rules or regulations, or finalize or 
otherwise enforce or give lawful effect to draft rules or regulations 
until January 31, 2013.

SEC. 3. EXCEPTIONS TO MORATORIUM.

    Section 2 does not apply in the case of a rule excepted by section 
553(a) of title 5, United States Code, from the requirements of that 
section or for which notice of proposed rulemaking is not required 
under subsection 553(b) of title 5, United States Code.
                                 <all>
```
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas

November 18, 2021

No. 04

- 21

- 00311

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF T.A.G., J.I.R.G., C.M. R.A., AND G.A. JR. , minor children,

From the 408th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2020

- PA

- 01608 Honorable Charles E. Montemayor , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

This is an accelerated appeal of an order terminating appellant’s parental rights which must be disposed of by this court within 180 days of the date the notice of appeal is filed. T EX

. R. J UD

. A DMIN

. 6.2. Appellant’s pro se brief was originally due on November 17, 2021, and appellant filed a motion requesting an extension of time until Nov ember 19, 2021.

After consideration, we GRANT the motion and ORDER appellant to file her pro se brief by November 19, 2021

. Appellant is advised that further extensions of time will be disfavored.

_________________________________ Beth Watkins , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 18th day of November, 2021

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court
# C_2012366EN.01002401.xml

| 24.11.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 366/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.11.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 366/24

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Székesfehérvári Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 13 August 2012 — Hervis Sport- és Divatkereskedelmi Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Közép-dunántúli Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága

(Case C-385/12)

2012/C 366/41

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Referring court

Székesfehérvári Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Hervis Sport- és Divatkereskedelmi Kft.

Applicant:

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Közép-dunántúli Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Is the fact that taxpayers engaged in store retail trade have to pay a special tax if their net annual turnover is higher than HUF 500 million compatible with the provisions of the EC Treaty governing the principle of the general prohibition of discrimination (Articles 18 TFEU and 26 TFEU), the principle of freedom of establishment (Article 49 TFEU), the principle of equal treatment (Article 54 TFEU), the principle of equal treatment as regards participation in the capital of companies or firms within the meaning of Article 54 (Article 55 TFEU), the principle of freedom to provide services (Article 56 TFEU), the principle of the free movement of capital (Articles 63 TFEU and 65 TFEU) and the principle of equality of taxation of companies (Article 110 TFEU)?

---
# C_2012250EN.01000901.xml

| 18.8.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 250/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.8.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 250/9

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 30 May 2012 — Frédéric Hay v Crédit agricole mutuel de Charente-Maritime et des Deux-Sèvres

(Case C-267/12)

2012/C 250/15

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Frédéric Hay

Applicant:

Defendant: Crédit agricole mutuel de Charente-Maritime et des Deux-Sèvres

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Must Article 2(2)(b) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC (1) of 27 November 2000 be interpreted as meaning that the choice of the national legislature to allow only persons of different sexes to marry can constitute a legitimate, appropriate and necessary aim such as to justify indirect discrimination resulting from the fact that a collective agreement which reserves an advantage in respect of pay and working conditions to employees who marry, thereby necessarily excluding from the benefit of that advantage same-sex partners who have entered into a civil solidarity pact?

1

---

(1)  Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16).

1

---
No. 74-5908.

#### Dongivine, aka Rocco, et al. *v.*United States.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit 10.2

Indigo Energy Successfully Demonstrates Flywheel UPS Technology

Composite Flywheel Operated at Mach 2+

NAPA, California--February 8, 2002--Indigo Energy, Inc. (OTC BB: IEGY.OB) of
Napa, California, a developer of battery-free power quality solutions, announced
today the successful testing of the Company's patent-pending composite flywheel
technology to a tip speed in excess of 1500 miles per hour - storing nearly 3000
watt-hours of energy. The testing was conducted at the Tacoma, Washington
facilities of Toray Industries, Inc. (www.toray.com) a $9 billion multinational
conglomerate and the composite flywheel manufacturing partner of Indigo Energy.

"By successfully demonstrating our prototype flywheel design, a significant
milestone has been passed in the development of the first of our low-cost,
ultra-high performance power quality flywheel products," said Dr. Chris Gabrys,
President of Indigo Energy.
"This accomplishment raises the standard for flywheel UPS systems."

Target applications for flywheel uninterruptible power supply (UPS) systems
include the supply of uninterrupted power for the FCC-regulated telephone
system, cellular phone towers, cable television, digital subscriber lines (DSL)
systems, and cable modem networks.

About Indigo Energy, Inc.

Indigo Energy (www.indigoenergyinc.com) is a development stage company working
to commercialize new ultra-high reliability, long-life flywheel energy storage
systems for the prevention of power interruptions. These uninterruptible power
solutions are designed to be cost-effective and environmentally friendly
alternatives to lead acid battery systems for critical power applications and
alternative energy applications. The worldwide market for power quality systems
in 2000 was $10-$12 billion and this market is projected to grow to $44 billion
by 2005.

The foregoing press release includes "forward looking statements" within the
meaning of, and made pursuant to, the safe harbor provisions of the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Such forward looking statements
involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties, and other factors which may
cause the actual results, performance or achievements of the Company or events,
or timing of events, relating to the Company to materially differ from those
expressed or implied by such forward looking statements. Indigo Energy, Inc.
refers interested parties to its Registration Statement No. 333-42026, as
amended, and other SEC filings for a complete description of, and discussions
about, Indigo Energy, Inc.

Contact:

Indigo Energy, Inc.
Secretary & Treasurer:
Scott Kostiuk, 707/254-9302
scottkostiuk@indigoenergyinc.com


                                       1

<PAGE>
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Nuclear Regulatory Commission
 Pursuant to 10 CFR 110.70(b)(1) “Public notice of receipt of an application,” please take notice that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has received the following request for an amendment to an export license. Copies of the request are available electronically through ADAMS and can be accessed through the Public Electronic Reading Room (PERR) link 
                    *http://www.nrc.gov/​reading-rm.html*
                     at the NRC Homepage. A request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene may be filed within 30 days after publication of this notice in the 
                    **Federal Register**
                    . Any request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene shall be served by the requestor or petitioner upon the applicant, the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555; the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555; and the Executive Secretary, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC 20520. In its review of applications and license amendments involving exports of a utilization facility as defined in 10 CFR part 110 and noticed herein, the Commission does not evaluate the health, safety or environmental effects in the recipient nation of the facility or facilities to be exported. The information concerning the application follows. NRC Application To Amend a License To Export a Utilization Facility Description of Material
Name of applicant; date of application; date received; 
                             Application No.; Docket No.
Description of facility
End use
Country of destinationWestinghouse Electric Company; April 16, 2007; April 17, 2007; XR169/01; 11005472
Amendment to change one of the ultimate consignees for two AP1000 pressurized water reactors from the Yang Jiang site to the Haiyang site and to revise the list of U.S. parties to the export
Electricity generation
People's Republic of China.
 For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Dated this 8th day of May 2007 at Rockville, Maryland. Janice Dunn Lee, Director, Office of International Programs.


[FR Doc. E7-9414 Filed 5-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
No. 48142.

#### Protest 42774-K/89700 of G. W. Sheldon & Co. (Chicago).

Opinion by

Walker, J.

It was stipulated that the onyx in question is similar to that the subject of Abstract 45347. The claim at 30 percent under paragraph 214 was therefore sustained.
Before the First Division,

September 6, 1939

No. 42057.

#### Protest 918683-G of Herman Plant (New York).

*375Opinion by

McClelland, P. J.

The samples were found to consist of articles made of colored feathers fastened together in various ways and shaped by cutting and binding to form what are millinery ornaments. They were found to be not merely feathers suitable for use as millinery ornaments but articles manufactured from feathers. The protest was therefore overruled. Brown, J., dissented.