alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Document

Exhibit 10.1.3

SUPPLEMENT TO SUBSIDIARY GUARANTY
Reference is hereby made to the Amended and Restated Subsidiary Guaranty (as the same may be amended, restated, supplemented or otherwise modified from time to time, the “Guaranty”) made as of January 2, 2020, by each of the Material Domestic Subsidiaries of Arcosa, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Borrower”) listed on the signature pages thereto (each, an “Initial Guarantor” and together with any additional Subsidiaries of the Borrower, which become parties thereto and together with the undersigned, the “Guarantors”) in favor of the Administrative Agent, for the ratable benefit of the Holders of Guaranteed Obligations, under the Credit Agreement.  Capitalized terms used herein and not defined herein shall have the meanings given to them in the Guaranty.  By its execution below, the undersigned StonePoint Intermediate Holding, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (the “New Guarantor”), agrees to become, and does hereby become, a Guarantor under the Guaranty and agrees to be bound by such Guaranty as if originally a party thereto.  By its execution below, the undersigned represents and warrants as to itself that all of the representations and warranties contained in Section 2 of the Guaranty are true and correct in all respects as of the date hereof.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, New Guarantor has executed and delivered this Annex I counterpart to the Guaranty as of this 31st day of August, 2021.
STONEPOINT INTERMEDIATE HOLDING, LLC


By:      /s/ Gail M. Peck            
Gail M. Peck
Vice President
Order entered December 4 , 2020

In The 

### Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 19
- 00790
- CR JEREMY WAYNE MILLS, Appellant
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 291 st J ud icial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F17
- 72093
- U
ORDER Appellant, who was convicted of aggravated sexual assault of a child younger than fourteen years of age , filed his brief on November 30, 2020. In the brief, a ppellan t i denti f ies the victi m by initials ; however, he identifies other children by name
. This Court does not allow a party to file a brief that discloses the names of victims or the names of witnesses who were children at the time of the off en ses , or the name s of an y other ch ildren discussed or identified at trial

. Se e T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 9.10(b) (“Unless a court orders otherwise, an electronic or paper– 2

– filing w ith the cou rt, including the contents of any appendices, must not contain sensitive d at a.”), id. 9.10(a)(3) (“ Sensitive Data Defined. Sensitive data consists of

. . . a birth dat e, a home address, and the name of a ny person who was a minor at the time the offense was committed.”). Accordingly, we STRIKE appellant’s brief.
We ORDE R appella nt to file, within TEN DA YS of the date of this order, an amended brief that id entifies any individuals who were children at the time of this off ense either generically (fo r example, “victim” ) or by initials on ly, including when quo ting releva nt portions of the rec o rd, giving a statement of the ca se, or
atta ching an appen dix.
W e DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this ord er to the Honorable Stephanie Huff , Presiding Judge, 291st Judicial Distr ict Court ; Bruce Kaye ; and the Dallas County District At torn ey ’ s Office

.

/s/ BILL PE DERSEN, I II JUSTICE
Abatement Order filed October 31, 2016 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-16-00723-CV

____________

IN THE INTEREST OF L.L.G., P.L.G., C.L.G., CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 315th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2014-05822J

ABATEMENT ORDER

This is an accelerated appeal from a judgment in a suit in which the 

termination of the parent-child relationship is at issue. Appellant’s brief was 

originally due October 18, 2016, but it has not been filed. 

On October 20, 2016, this court ordered appointed counsel, Stephen M. 

Pierce, to file a brief on or before October 28, 2016. No brief was filed. Accordingly, 

we issue the following order.

We ORDER the judge of the 315th District Court to immediately conduct a 

hearing to determine (1) the reason for the failure to file a brief; (2) whether appellant 

desires to continue this appeal; and (3) if appellant desires to continue the appeal, a 
date certain when appellant’s brief will be filed. The judge shall appoint new 

appellate counsel for appellant if necessary. The judge shall see that a record of the 

hearing is made, shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law, and shall order 

the trial clerk to forward a record of the hearing and a supplemental clerk’s record 

containing the findings and conclusions. The transcribed record of the hearing, and 

supplemental clerk’s record shall be filed with the clerk of this court on or before 

November 10, 2016.

The appeal is abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from this court’s 

active docket. The appeal will be reinstated on this court’s active docket when the 

trial court’s findings and recommendations are filed in this court. The court will also 

consider an appropriate motion to reinstate the appeal filed by either party, or the 

court may reinstate the appeal on its own motion. It is the responsibility of any party 

seeking reinstatement to request a hearing date from the trial court and to schedule 

a hearing in compliance with this court’s order. If the parties do not request a hearing, 

the court coordinator of the trial court shall set a hearing date and notify the parties 

of such date.

PER CURIAM
## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of T exas at Fort Worth

____ _______________________

No. 02

- 21

- 00329

- CV

__________ _

____ ____________

On Appeal from the 231st District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 231

- 691938

- 20

Before Birdwell, Wo mack, and Wallach, JJ. M emorandum Opinion by Justice Birdwell



### I N THE 

### I NTEREST OF 

### A.P., A 

### C HILD2 ME MORANDUM OPINION
Mother appeals from the trial court ’s judgment terminating her pa rent al rights
to her child on the grounds that Mo ther endanger ed the child and failed to comply
with her cour t

- or dered service plan. 1 See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161 .001(b)(1)(D), (E), (O) , (b)(2)

. We affirm.
Mother ’ s appointed appellate counsel file d a motion to withdraw and an Anders
b rief stating that there are no arguable grounds for appeal. See An ders v. Ca lifornia , 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967 ); see also In re K.M. , 98 S.W.3d 774, 776

– 77 (Tex. App.

— Fort W orth 2 003 , no pet. ) (ho lding that Anders procedures apply in cases terminating parental rights ). The brief meets the Anders req uirements by presenting a professional evaluation of the record a nd demonstrating why th ere are no ar guable
g rounds to be advanced on appeal. Furt her, Mother ’ s counsel (1) pr ovided Mother
wit h cop ies of the motion to withdraw and the Anders brief , (2) in f ormed Moth er of her right s to file a pro se response and to seek discretionary review from t he sup reme

court , and ( 3 ) advise d Mother of her right to ac cess the appellate record and provided
to her a form motion for effectuating that purpose

. See Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313 , 319

– 20 ( Tex. Crim. App . 2014). Mother did not file a response and the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services de clined to file a brie f.
When an Anders brief is f iled, we must independently examine the record to
determine if an y arguable grounds for appe al exist . In re C.J. , 501 S.W.3d 254 , 255

1 Fath er also had his parental rights ter minated but did n ot appeal the judgment.3 (Tex. App.

— Fort Wort h 2016 , pet s . denied )

. Our examination should consider the record, the briefs, and any pro se respon se. In re L. B

. , No. 02

- 19

- 00407

- CV, 2020 WL 1809505, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth Apr. 9, 20 20, no pet.) (mem. op.).
After careful review , we agree wit h Mo ther ’ s counsel that the re a re no arguable grounds for appeal in this case. We affirm the trial court ’ s judgment terminating
Mother ’ s parental rights. However, we de ny th e motion to withdraw b ecause Mother ’ s counsel did not show good cause other than coun sel ’ s determination that an appeal would be frivolous. See In re P.M. , 520 S.W.3d 24, 27

– 28 (Tex. 20 16); C.J. , 501
S.W.3d at 255

. Thus, Moth er ’ s counsel remai ns ap pointe d in this case through any proceedings in the suprem e court unless otherw ise relieved of these duties

. See In re P.M. , 52 0 S.W.3d at 27. /s/ Wade Birdwell
Wade Birdwell Justice
Delivered : February 10, 2022
Exhibit 32





Certifications





In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 of American General Finance, Inc. as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of, Frederick W. Geissinger, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Donald R. Breivogel, Jr., Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(1)

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



(2)

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.







|      | /s/                                               | Frederick W. Geissinger  | 
|----- | ------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------ | 
|      |                                                   | Frederick W. Geissinger  | 
|      | President and Chief Executive Officer             |                         
|      | /s/                                               | Donald R. Breivogel, Jr. | 
|      |                                                   | Donald R. Breivogel, Jr. | 
|      | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer |                         
|Date: | May 11, 2006                                      |                          | 





39
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman,

 Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 

December 21, 2018

Order 

Clerk

December 21, 2018

156737(72)

MICHIGAN ASSOCIATION OF HOME

BUILDERS, ASSOCIATED BUILDERS AND

CONTRACTORS OF MICHIGAN, and

MICHIGAN PLUMBING AND MECHANICAL

CONTRACTOR ASSOCIATION,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

SC: 156737

v COA: 331708

Oakland CC: 2010-115620-CZ

CITY OF TROY,

Defendant-Appellee.

______________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of the Michigan Manufacturers

Association to file a brief amicus curiae is GRANTED. The amicus brief submitted on 

December 19, 2018, is accepted for filing.
<PAGE>

               EXHIBIT 15 -- INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS' REVIEW REPORT
 
 
The Board of Directors
Cubic Corporation
 
 
We have reviewed the accompanying consolidated condensed balance sheet of 
Cubic Corporation as of March 31, 1997, and the related consolidated 
condensed statement of income for the three and six-month periods ended March 
31, 1997 and 1996, and consolidated condensed statement of cash flows for the 
six-month periods ended March 31, 1997 and 1996.  These financial statements 
are the responsibility of the Company's management.
 
We conducted our reviews in accordance with standards established by the 
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants.  A review of interim 
financial information consists principally of applying analytical procedures 
to financial data, and making inquiries of persons responsible for financial 
and accounting matters.  It is substantially less in scope than an audit in 
accordance with generally accepted auditing standards, which will be 
performed for the full year with the objective of expressing an opinion 
regarding the financial statements taken as a whole.  Accordingly, we do not 
express such an opinion.
 
Based on our reviews, we are not aware of any material modifications that 
should be made to the accompanying consolidated condensed financial 
statements referred to above for them to be in conformity with generally 
accepted accounting principles.
 
We have previously audited, in accordance with generally accepted auditing 
standards, the consolidated balance sheet of Cubic Corporation as of 
September 30, 1996, and the related consolidated statements of income, 
retained earnings, and cash flows for the year then ended (not presented 
herein) and in our report dated December 4, 1996, we expressed an unqualified 
opinion on those consolidated financial statements.  In our opinion, the 
information set forth in the accompanying consolidated condensed balance 
sheet at September 30, 1996, is fairly stated in all material respects in 
relation to the consolidated balance sheet from which it has been derived.


                                                 ERNST & YOUNG LLP

May 2, 1997
San Diego, California
```

[Federal Register: September 22, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 183)]
[Notices]               
[Page 57826]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr22se10-117]                         

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 7179]

 
Determination and Certification Related to Colombian Armed Forces 
Under Section 7046(B) of the Department of State, Foreign Operations, 
and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2010 (Division F, Pub. L. 111-
117)

    Pursuant to the authority vested in the Secretary of State, 
including under section 7046(b) of the Department of State, Foreign 
Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2010 (Div. F, Pub. 
L. 111-117) (``FY 2010 SFOAA''), I hereby determine, certify, and 
report that the Colombian Armed Forces are meeting the conditions 
contained in section 7046(b)(1)(B) and section 7046(b)(2) of the 
Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs 
Appropriations Act, 2009 (Div. H, Pub. L. 111-8) (``FY 2009 SFOAA'').
    Pursuant to section 7046(b) of the FY 2010 SFOAA, the Department of 
State has periodically consulted with Colombian and internationally 
recognized human rights organizations regarding the Colombian Armed 
Forces' progress in meeting the above-mentioned conditions, as provided 
in section 7046(c) of the FY 2009 SFOAA.
    This Determination and Certification shall be published in the 
Federal Register, and copies shall be transmitted to the appropriate 
committees of Congress.

    Dated: September 9, 2010.
James B. Steinberg,
Deputy Secretary of State.
[FR Doc. 2010-23696 Filed 9-21-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-29-P
```
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18
- 6672

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. JEROME FREDERICK SATTERFIELD , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Greensboro

. Thomas D. Schroeder , Chief District Judge. ( 1:99

- cr
- 00131

- TDS

- 1 )

Submitted : October 26, 2018 Decided: November 15, 2018

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KEENAN , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Jerome Frederick Satterfield, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Jerome Frederick Satterfield appeals from the d istrict court’s order granting his motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2) (20 12 ), but denying his request to have his federal sentence run concurrent ly to his state sentence

. We have
reviewed the court’s order de novo and find no error. United States v. Peters , 843 F.3d 572, 577 (4th Cir. 2016), cert. denied , 137 S. Ct. 2267 (2017) (stating standard of review). We therefore affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presente d in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 243 (Thursday, December 18, 1997)]
[Presidential Documents]
[Page 66493]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-33299]



[[Page 66491]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part VII





The President





_______________________________________________________________________



Executive Order 13070--The Intelligence Oversight Board, Amendment to 
Executive Order 12863


                        Presidential Documents 



Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 1997 / 
Presidential Documents

___________________________________________________________________

Title 3--
The President

[[Page 66493]]

                Executive Order 13070 of December 15, 1997

                
The Intelligence Oversight Board, Amendment to 
                Executive Order 12863

                By the authority vested in me as President by the 
                Constitution and the laws of the United States of 
                America, and in order to emphasize the role of the 
                Intelligence Oversight Board in providing executive 
                branch oversight, it is hereby ordered that Executive 
                Order 12863 is amended as follows:

                Section 1. The text in section 2.1 is deleted and the 
                following text is inserted in lieu thereof: ``The 
                Intelligence Oversight Board (IOB) is hereby 
                established as a standing committee of the PFIAB. The 
                IOB shall consist of no more than four members 
                designated by the President from among the membership 
                of the PFIAB. The Chairman of the PFIAB may also serve 
                as the Chairman or a member of the IOB if so designated 
                by the President. The IOB shall utilize such full-time 
                staff and consultants as authorized by the Chairman of 
                the IOB with the concurrence of the Chairman of the 
                PFIAB.''

                Sec. 2. The first sentence in section 2.3 is deleted 
                and the following sentence is inserted in lieu thereof: 
                ``The IOB shall report to the President.''

                    (Presidential Sig.)<Clinton1><Clinton2>

                THE WHITE HOUSE,

                    December 15, 1997.

[FR Doc. 97-33299
Filed 12-17-97; 10:29 am]
Billing code 3195-01-P
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7213 

To provide a civil remedy for an individual whose rights have been violated 

by a person acting under Federal authority, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 15, 2020 

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia (for himself and Mr. RASKIN) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To provide a civil remedy for an individual whose rights 

have been violated by a person acting under Federal 

authority, 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 ‘‘Bivens Act of 2020’’. 

5 SEC. 2. CIVIL ACTION AGAINST PERSON ACTING UNDER 

6 FEDERAL AUTHORITY. 

7 Section 1979 of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 

8 1983) is amended by inserting ‘‘of the United States or’’ 

9 before ‘‘of any State’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 32 (Tuesday, February 18, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 7223]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-3855]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. CP97-235-000]


Koch Gateway Pipeline Company; Notice of Request Under Blanket 
Authorization

February 11, 1997.
    Take notice that on February 6, 1997, Koch Gateway Pipeline Company 
(Koch Gateway), P.O. Box 1478, Houston, Texas 77251-1478, filed in the 
above docket, a request pursuant to Secs. 157.205 and 157.211(a)(2) of 
the Commission's Regulations, and for authorization to construct and 
operate a 6-inch tap and dual 6-inch meter station to serve Louisiana 
Gas Services Company (LGS) a local distribution company, in Tammy 
Parish, Louisiana, under Koch Gateway's NNS Rate Schedule. Koch Gateway 
makes such requests, under its blanket certificate issued in Docket No. 
CP82-430, and pursuant to Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act, all as more 
fully set forth in the request which is file with the Commission and 
open to public inspection.
    Any person or the Commission's staff way, within 45 days after 
issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 
214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 
385.214) a motion to intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant 
to Sec. 157.205 of the Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 
157.205) a protest to the request. If no protest is filed within the 
time allowed therefor, the proposed activity is deemed to be authorized 
effective on the day after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a 
protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after the time 
allowed for filing a protest, the instant request shall be treated as 
an application for authorization pursuant to Section 7 of the Natural 
Gas Act.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-3855 Filed 2-14-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7409 

To temporarily extend participation in the 8(a) program of the Small Business 

Administration, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 29, 2020 

Mr. RICHMOND introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Small Business 

A BILL 

To temporarily extend participation in the 8(a) program of 

the Small Business Administration, 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. EXTENSION OF PARTICIPATION IN 8(a) PRO4 GRAM. 

5 The Administrator of the Small Business Administra6 tion shall ensure that a small business concern partici7 pating in the program established under section 8(a) of 

8 the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 637) on or before 

9 March 13, 2020, may elect to extend such participation 

10 by a period of up to 2 years, regardless of whether such 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7409 IH

1 concern previously elected to suspend participation in such 

2 program pursuant to guidance of the Administrator. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS