alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED SE PTEMBER 18, 2019

NO. 03

- 19

- 00072

- CR

Romen DeLeon, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF HAYS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES GOODWIN, BA KE R, AND KELLY

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE BAKER

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction r en d ered by the tr i a l court. Having reviewed

the record, it appears t hat the Court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal . Therefore, the Court

dismisses the appeal for want of jurisdiction

. A ppellant shall pay all costs relating to this appeal,

both in this Court and in the court below.
November 4, 2010
Analyst Contact:
Andrew ZiolaMedia Contact:
918-588-7163

Brad Borror

918-588-7582


ONEOK Partners to Participate in Bank of America


Merrill Lynch Global Energy Conference




TULSA, Okla. –Nov. 4, 2010 -- ONEOK Partners, L.P. (NYSE: OKS) will present at the Bank of America Merrill Lynch Global Energy Conference on Friday, Nov. 12, 2010, in Miami, Fla.




Terry K. Spencer, ONEOK Partners chief operating officer, will present at the conference at 11 a.m. Eastern Standard Time (10 a.m. Central Standard Time).




The conference will be webcast and will be accessible on ONEOK Partners’ website, www.oneokpartners.com. A replay of the webcast will be archived for 30 days after the conference.




The company will also post the presentation on its website that morning, beginning at 8 a.m. Eastern Standard Time (7 a.m. Central Standard Time).




ONEOK Partners, L.P. (NYSE: OKS) is one of the largest publicly traded master limited partnerships, and is a leader in the gathering, processing, storage and transportation of natural gas in the U.S. and owns one of the nation’s premier natural gas liquids (NGL) systems, connecting NGL supply in the Mid-Continent and Rocky Mountain regions with key market centers. Its general partner is a wholly owned subsidiary of ONEOK, Inc. (NYSE: OKE), a diversified energy company, which owns 42.8 percent of the overall partnership interest. ONEOK is one of the largest natural gas distributors in the United States, and its energy services operation focuses primarily on marketing natural gas and related services throughout the U.S.





For more information, visit the website at www.oneokpartners.com. OKS-FV OKE-FV





# # #
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>               5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
CONSOLIDATED  CONDENSED BALANCE SHEETS,  STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS,  STATEMENT OF
STOCKHOLDERS'  EQUITY AND  STATEMENT  OF CASH FLOWS FROM FORM 10Q FOR THE PERIOD
ENDED SEPTE
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>      1,000
       
<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       Dec-27-1997
<PERIOD-END>                            Sep-27-1997
<CASH>                                        1,936
<SECURITIES>                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                                73,659
<ALLOWANCES>                                  4,420
<INVENTORY>                                  52,831
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            130,379
<PP&E>                                       60,433
<DEPRECIATION>                               18,191
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              299,156
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        99,260
<BONDS>                                     162,450
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<COMMON>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                   (4,612)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                299,156
<SALES>                                     772,044
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            776,491
<CGS>                                       693,327
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               757,797
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                101
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              1,125
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           17,085
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               1,508
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (2,691)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           4,199
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              (8,693)
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (4,494)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0
        




</TABLE>
##### 



STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT AMENDMENT
AND
BONUS AGREEMENT
 THIS
STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT AMENDMENT AND BONUS AGREEMENT
 WHEREAS, Schedule A Schedule A
 WHEREAS,
 WHEREAS, Schedule A Schedule A.
 WHEREAS, Schedule A, Schedule A
 NOW THEREFORE,
 1. Increased
Exercise Price . Schedule A Schedule A.
 2. Bonus . Schedule A




---



##### 



3. Entire Agreement.
 4. Continuation of Option Agreements.
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
 CYBERONICS, INC./s/ John A. RiccardiBy: John A. RiccardiTITLE: Vice President,
FinanceOPTIONEEBy: Randal L. Simpson




---



##### 



SCHEDULE A
 Number ofUnexercisedOption Shares
    
    Applicable
    
    Increased
    
    Aggregate
    
    PotentialExercise Price
    
    Which Vest After
    
    Measurement
    
    Exercise Price
    
    Increase in
    
    Retention BonusName
    
    Plan
    
    Grant Date
    
    Per Share
    
    12/31/04
    
    Date
    
    Per Share*
    
    Exercise Price
    
    **Simpson, Randal
    
    1997 Plan
    
    
    10/27/03
    
    
    $
    26.49
    
    
    
    49,067
    
    
    
    11/03/03
    
    
    $
    0.86
    
    
    $
    42,197.62
    
    
    $
    42,197.62Total
    
    $
    42,197.62
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 109 (Wednesday, June 6, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 26279]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-12126]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP18-851-000]


Cheniere Energy, Inc.; Notice of Petition for Declaratory Order

    Take notice that on May 25, 2018, pursuant to Rule 207(a)(2) of the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice 
and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.207(a)(2) (2017), Cheniere Energy, Inc. filed 
a petition for a declaratory order seeking a ruling that certain 
proposed transactions discussed in the petition would not violate the 
Commission's buy-sell prohibition or any related capacity release rule, 
regulation, or policy, all as more fully explained in the petition.
    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 Petitioner.
    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 5 copies 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 
website that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a 
document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any 
FERC Online service, please email <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#165053445559787a7f787345636666796462567073647538717960"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7a3c3f283935141613141f290f0a0a15080e3a1c1f0819541d150c">[email protected]</span></a>, or call 
(866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on June 25, 2018.

    Dated: May 31, 2018.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-12126 Filed 6-5-18; 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>
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 37 (Tuesday, February 25, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 8455]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-4505]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service


Endangered and Threatened Species Permit Application

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of receipt of application.

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

    The following applicant has applied for a permit to conduct certain 
activities with endangered species. This notice is provided pursuant to 
section 10(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 
U.S.C. 1531, et seq.).

PRT-825384

    Applicant: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, 
Wisconsin.
    The applicant requests a permit to take Karner Blue Butterflies 
(Lycaeides melissa samuelis) on lands owned and/or managed by the 
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Take will involve land use 
and land management practices to create and protect suitable butterfly 
habitat. Habitat management involves various forms of disturbance which 
may injure or kill individual butterflies, but maintains habitat upon 
which the species depends. In addition to land management and 
disturbance, the applicant proposes to implement biological monitoring 
of habitats and populations, including, but not limited to, biological 
surveys and research activities to begin implementation of recovery 
goals for the species. Activities are proposed for the purpose of 
survival and enhancement of the species in the wild.
    Written data or comments should be submitted to the Regional 
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Ecological 
Services Operations, 1 Federal Drive, Fort Snelling, Minnesota 55111-
4056, and must be received within 30 days of the date of this 
publication.
    Documents and other information submitted with these applications 
are available for review by any party who submits a written request for 
a copy of such documents to the following office within 30 days of the 
date of publication of this notice: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
Division of Ecological Services Operations, 1 Federal Drive, Fort 
Snelling, Minnesota 55111-4056. Telephone: (612/725-3536 x250); FAX: 
(612/725-3526).

    Dated: February 14, 1997.
John A. Blankenship,
Assistant Regional Director, IL, IN, MO (Ecological Services), Region 
3, Fort Snelling, Minnesota.
[FR Doc. 97-4505 Filed 2-24-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 111 (Friday, June 8, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 26706]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-12343]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Indian Affairs

[189A2100DD/AAKC001030/A0A501010.999900253G]


Indian Gaming; Approval of a Tribal-State Class III Gaming 
Compact in the State of Oklahoma

AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Shawnee Tribe and the State of Oklahoma entered into a 
compact governing class III gaming; this notice announces the approval 
of the Tribal Gaming Compact between the Shawnee Tribe and the State of 
Oklahoma.

DATES: This compact takes effect on June 8, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Paula L. Hart, Director, Office of 
Indian Gaming, Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary--Policy and 
Economic Development, Washington, DC 20240, (202) 219-4066.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under section 11 of the Indian Gaming 
Regulatory Act (IGRA) Public Law 100-497, 25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq., the 
Secretary of the Interior shall publish in the Federal Register notice 
of approved Tribal-State compacts for the purpose of engaging in Class 
III gaming activities on Indian lands. As required by IGRA and 25 CFR 
293.4, all compacts are subject to review and approval by the 
Secretary. The Compact authorizes the Tribe to engage in certain class 
III gaming activities, provides for certain geographical exclusivity, 
limits the number of gaming machines at existing racetracks, and 
prohibits non-tribal operation of certain machines and covered games.

    Dated: May 7, 2018.
John Tahsuda,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs, Exercising the 
Authority of the Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2018-12343 Filed 6-7-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4337-15-P
No. 10419.

#### The Reaugh Construction Co. *v.*The City of Mansfield.

Decided June 16, 1908.

Error to Circuit Court of Richland county.

*Mr. A. E. McKisson*and *Messrs. Kerr & La Dow,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. Glenn M. Cummings,*city solicitor; *Mr. L. H. Beam*and *Mr. Lewis*
      *444
      *Brucker,*for defendant in error.

Judgment modified as stated in journal entry.

It is hereby ordered and adjudged by this court, that the judgment of the said circuit court be, and the same hereby is, affirmed in all respects except as to the claim of $36.00 for lumber left in the sewer trench, and as to this item the judgment of the circuit court is reversed and that of the common pleas is affirmed at the costs of the defendant in error.

Price, C. J., Crew, Summers and Spear, JJ., concur.
[iN RADE COM
0 Ri G NAL KE ive voces)
@ SHON!
NOV 1 7 2008
53906

SECRETARY

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES

In the Matter of

POLYPORE INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
Respondent.

Docket No. 9327

Ne)

ORDER ON NON-PARTY ENERSYS’ MOTION TO EXTEND
TIME IN WHICH TO MOVE TO LIMIT SUBPOENA SERVED BY
RESPONDENT AND TO SEEK COST REIMBURSEMENT

On November 17, 2008, non-party EnerSys filed a motion to extend the time in which to
move to limit the subpoena served on it by Respondent and to extend the time in which to seek
cost reimbursement. EnerSys states that Complaint Counsel has reviewed the motion and
authorized EnerSys to represent that Complaint Counsel takes no position on the motion.
EnerSys also states that Respondent has reviewed the motion and authorized EnerSys to
represent that Respondent has no objection to the extension of time requested by the motion, but
that Respondent does not agree that EnerSys is entitled to recover the costs of reviewing and
gathering documents for production. EnerSys’ motion is GRANTED.

It is hereby ORDERED that the time in which EnerSys may object to the subpoena
served upon it by Respondent is extended to December 16, 2008.

ORDERED: on Arapeell

D. Michael Chappell
Administrative Law Judge

Date: November 17, 2008
#### Johnny N. WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-1078.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 19, 1973.

Johnny N. Williams, in pro. per.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.

Before PEARSON, CHARLES CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This court, proceeding in the manner outlined and recommended by the Supreme Court of the United States in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, having deferred ruling on a motion of the public defender to withdraw as counsel for the indigent defendant-appellant, and having furnished appellant with a copy of the public defender’s memorandum brief, and having allowed the appellant a reasonable specified time within which to raise any points that he chose in support of this appeal, and the appellant having filed his response thereto, on consideration thereof upon full examination of the proceedings we conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous. Whereupon, the public defender’s said motion to withdraw is granted, and the order or judgment appealed is hereby affirmed.
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-18-00197-CV

Salvador Zavala

v.

Carlos C. Boliva, Et Al.

On Appeal from the

343rd District Court of Bee County, Texas

Trial Cause No. B-17-1490-CV-C

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED. Costs of the appeal are adjudged 

against appellant, Salvador Zavala. 

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

July 11, 2019
* 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. 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-60200 Summary Calendar

ANA INEZ GUTIERREZ-GARCIA Petitioner

v. MICHAEL B MUKASEY, U S ATTORNEY GENERAL Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A29-966-728
Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Ana Inez Gutierrez-Garcia is a native and citizen of Guatemala. She petitions, pro se

, for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (B IA) affirmanceofthe immigrationjudge’s (IJ) denial ofher motion toreopen removal proceedings, and denial of her motion for a remand. While questions of law are reviewed de novo, we “accord deference to the BI A’s interpretation of immigration statutes unless the record reveals compelli ng evidence that the United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D November 26, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 07-60200

2 BIA’s interpretation is incorrect”. Mikhael v. INS , 115 F.3d 299, 302 (5th Cir. 1997) (citing Rojas v. INS , 937 F.2d 186, 189 (5th Cir. 1991)). The BIA’s affirmance of an IJ’s denial of a motion to reopen removal proceedings is reviewed for an abuse ofdiscretion. See, e.g., Altamirano-Lopez v. Gonzales, 435 F.3d 547, 549 (5th Cir. 2006). Motions to reopen deportation proceedings are disfavored, and the moving party bears a heavy burden. Id. Gutierrez was required to file a motion to reopen within 180 days of the in absentia deportation order. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(i). That order was dated 24 April 1990. Gutierrez did not file her motion to reopen the proceedings until 9 July 2004, 14 years later. Additionally, as this is her second motion to reopen, it was improvidently filed, given that she was entitled to file only one motion to reopen. I d. § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (c)(7)(C)(iii). Thus, the BIA’s affirmance of the IJ’s denial of Gutierrez’ motion to reopen, based on her delay in seeking such relief, was not an abuse of discretion. See Altamirano-Lopez, 435 F.3d at 549. BIA regulations do not specifically authorize motions to remand. Nevertheless, as noted supra, we review the BIA’s denial ofa motion to remand for an abuse of discretion. See, e.g., Ogbemudia v. INS , 988 F.2d 595, 600 (5th Cir. 1993). The BIA must deny a motion to remand if it finds the movant has not introduced previously unavailable, material evidence, or if the movant has not established a prima facie case for the underlying substantive relief sought. I d. at 599-600. Because, as discussed above, Gutierrez has not established a prima facie case for reopening the removal proceedings, the BIA did not abuse its discretion when it denied her motion for a remand. See id. DENIED.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7596 

To direct the Secretary of Defense to provide medical providers of the Department of Defense mandatory training with respect to the potential health 

effects of burn pits. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 13, 2020 

Mr. RUIZ (for himself, Mr. BILIRAKIS, and Mr. WELCH) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To direct the Secretary of Defense to provide medical providers of the Department of Defense mandatory training 

with respect to the potential health effects of burn pits. 

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

3 SECTION 1. MANDATORY TRAINING ON HEALTH EFFECTS 

4 OF BURN PITS. 

5 The Secretary of Defense shall provide to each med6 ical provider of the Department of Defense mandatory 

7 training with respect to the potential health effects of burn 

8 pits. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
- PDF003
- PDF004
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Edmond TALBOT, III.

No. 60589.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 12, 1977.

In re: Edmond Talbot, III, applying for supervisory writs.

Granted, in part, denied in part. As to assignments 1 and 2, the writ is granted and the trial court is ordered to hold an evidentiary hearing with respect to bail on the rape charge; as to all other contentions and assignments, the writ is denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>
                                                             
                                                                   
<ARTICLE>      5
                                                                   
<S>                             <C>                                
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                          9-MOS       
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                     DEC-31-1998     
<CASH>                                                   254                                      
<SECURITIES>                                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      4,494,675
<ALLOWANCES>                                          19,094
<INVENTORY>                                          885,209
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   5,946,933
<PP&E>                                             8,467,034
<DEPRECIATION>                                     4,369,629
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    18,548,979         
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              8,359,003   
<BONDS>                                            9,709,923 
<COMMON>                                             350,981
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                      0
<PREFERRED>                                        1,507,798
<OTHER-SE>                                        (1,707,429)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      18,548,979
<SALES>                                           13,270,823
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  13,270,823
<CGS>                                              9,227,633
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      4,063,627
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                           0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     (56,254) 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   536,243
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     (556,680)
<INCOME-TAX>                                               0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 (556,680)
<DISCONTINUED>                                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                            0
<CHANGES>                                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                                        (556,680)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          (0.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          (0.10)
                                                     
                                                     

</TABLE>