alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 27, 2015

No. 04-15-00411-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF M.G.P. & D.J.P., minor children,

From the 38th Judicial District Court, Uvalde County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014-06-30038-CV

Spencer Whitewood Brown, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Appellant’s notice of appeal was filed in this court on July 7, 2015. The trial court 

extended appellant’s time to pay the filing fee to July 17, 2015. To this date, appellant has not 

paid the $195 filing fee nor made any showing that appellant is excused by statute or rule from 

paying the filing fee. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5, 20. Appellant has also failed to file a docketing 

statement. 

It is therefore ORDERED appellant show cause in writing within fifteen days of the date 

of this order that either: (1) the filing fee has been paid; or (2) appellant is entitled to appeal 

without paying the filing fee. If appellant fails to respond within the time provided, this appeal 

will be dismissed for failure to pay the filing fee. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5, 42.3(c). 

All other appellate deadlines are suspended pending the payment of the filing fee.

_________________________________

Jason Pulliam, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 27th day of July, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                  JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                                230
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       3,492
<ALLOWANCES>                                            0
<INVENTORY>                                         5,725
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   10,047
<PP&E>                                             43,038
<DEPRECIATION>                                     31,977
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     21,307
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           3,290,984
<BONDS>                                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                            49
<COMMON>                                           42,501
<OTHER-SE>                                      1,477,937
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       21,307
<SALES>                                            17,722
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   25,664
<CGS>                                               1,610
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     134,391
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  224,704
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                181,366
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (514,797)
<INCOME-TAX>                                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (514,797)
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (514,797)
<EPS-BASIC>                                         (.034)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       (.034)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 99.1












June 16, 2010

Analyst Contact:
Dan Harrison918-588-7950Media Contact:
Megan Lewis918-561-5325




ONEOK and ONEOK Partners Schedule Second-quarter
 2010 Earnings Conference Call and Webcast
 
 TULSA, Okla. – June 16, 2010 – ONEOK, Inc. (NYSE: OKE) and ONEOK Partners, L.P. (NYSE: OKS) will release their second-quarter earnings after the market closes on Aug. 3, 2010.
 
 A joint conference call will be held the following day on Aug. 4, 2010, at 11 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time (10 a.m. Central Daylight Time).  The call also will be carried live on ONEOK’s and ONEOK Partners’ websites.
 
 ONEOK’s and ONEOK Partners’ senior management teams will participate in the call and webcast.
 
 What:
ONEOK, Inc. and ONEOK Partners, L.P. second-quarter earnings conference call and webcast
  When:
11 a.m. Eastern, Aug. 4, 2010
 10 a.m. Central
  Where:
1) Phone conference call 866-227-1582, pass code 1465061
 2) Log on to the webcast at www.oneok.com
 3) Log on to the webcast at www.oneokpartners.com
  If you are unable to participate in the conference call or the webcast, the replay will be available on ONEOK’s website, www.oneok.com, and ONEOK Partners’ website, www.oneokpartners.com, for 30 days. A recording will be available by phone for seven days.   The playback call may be accessed at 866-837-8032, pass code 1465061.
 
 
 
 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
 
 ONEOK and ONEOK Partners Schedule Second-quarter
 2010 Earnings Conference Call and Webcast
 
 Page 2
 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.
 
 ONEOK, Inc. (NYSE: OKE) is a diversified energy company.  We are the general partner and own 42.8 percent of ONEOK Partners, L.P. (NYSE: OKS), one of the largest publicly traded master limited partnerships, which 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.  ONEOK is among the largest natural gas distributors in the United States, serving more than two million customers in Oklahoma, Kansas and Texas.  Our energy services operation focuses primarily on marketing natural gas and related services throughout the U.S.  ONEOK is a FORTUNE 500 company and is included in Standard & Poor’s (S&P) 500 Stock Index.
 
 For more information, visit the websites at www.oneokpartners.com or www.oneok.com. OKE-FV OKS-FV
 
 
 ###
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8177 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to remove from the list 

of drugs excluded from coverage under the Medicare prescription drug 

program prescription oral vitamins and mineral products indicated for 

the treatment of iron deficiency anemia in individuals with chronic kidney 

disease. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 4, 2020 

Mr. O’HALLERAN (for himself, Mr. BUCSHON, Mr. BUTTERFIELD, and Mr. 

MULLIN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on 

Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 

Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within 

the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to remove 

from the list of drugs excluded from coverage under 

the Medicare prescription drug program prescription oral 

vitamins and mineral products indicated for the treatment of iron deficiency anemia in individuals with chronic kidney disease. 

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


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8177 IH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Renal Anemia Innova3 tion Support and Expansion Act’’ or the ‘‘RAISE Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. REMOVING CERTAIN PRESCRIPTION VITAMINS AND 

5 MINERAL PRODUCTS FROM THE LIST OF 

6 DRUGS EXCLUDED FROM COVERAGE UNDER 

7 THE MEDICARE PRESCRIPTION DRUG PRO8 GRAM. 

9 Section 1860D–2(e)(2)(A) of the Social Security Act 

10 (42 U.S.C. 1395w–102(e)(2)(A)) is amended by inserting 

11 ‘‘other than subparagraph (F) of such section (relating to 

12 prescription vitamin and mineral products, except prenatal 

13 vitamins and fluoride preparations) if the prescription vi14 tamin or mineral product is orally administered and is in15 dicated for treatment of iron deficiency anemia in individ16 uals with chronic kidney disease,’’ after ‘‘other than sub17 paragraph (E) of such section (relating to smoking ces18 sation agents),’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
#### Ethel Ray ORGERON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Patrick R. CARMICHAEL, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 4164.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

March 19, 1973.

Irwin L. Tunis, New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellant.

Shelton & Cline, by Robert T. Cline, Rayne, for defendant-appellee.

Before FRUGÉ, HOOD and CULPEP-PER, JJ.

HOOD, Judge.

The appellant did not appear in person or through counsel when this case was called for argument on the date it had been regularly docketed for hearing, and no brief has been filed in her behalf. The appeal thus is considered as having been abandoned, and accordingly the appeal is hereby dismissed. Rule VII, Section 5(b), Uniform Rules of the Courts of Appeal. The costs of this appeal are assessed to plaintiff-appellant.

Appeal dismissed.
<PAGE>


                                                                  Exhibit 10(b)

                       REPRESENTATION OF COUNSEL



I, Sandra M. DaDalt, in my capacity as counsel to Sun Life (N.Y.) Variable
Account A (the "Account") have reviewed this Post-Effective Amendment to the
Registration Statement of the Account which is being filed pursuant to
paragraph (b) of Rule 485 under the Securities Act of 1933. Based on my
review of this Post-Effective Amendment and such other material relating to
the operations of the Account as I deemed relevant, I hereby certify as of
the date of filing this Post-Effective Amendment, that the Post-Effective
Amendment does not contain disclosure which would render it ineligible to
become effective pursuant to paragraph (b) of Rule 485.

I hereby consent to the filing of this representation as part of this
Amendment to the Registration Statement of the Post-Effective Account.

                                         /s/ SANDRA M. DADALT
                                         -----------------------
                                         Sandra M. DaDalt, Esq.


July 24, 2001
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 121 (Friday, June 22, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 29001]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-13409]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Navy

32 CFR Part 736

[Docket ID: USN-2018-HQ-0002]
RIN 0703-AB05


Disposition of Property

AGENCY: Department of the Navy, Department of Defense.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule removes Department of the Navy regulations 
governing disposition of property, including surplus real property, 
warships, other surface vessels, personal property, and strategic 
materials. The disposal of surplus property is governed by standing 
authorities found within the U.S. Code. Further, disposal of surplus 
property is also governed by Department of Defense regulations entitled 
``Defense Material Disposition.'' Therefore, this rule can be removed 
from the CFR.

DATES: This rule is effective on June 22, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Omans at 703-614-5848.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: It has been determined that publication of 
this CFR part removal for public comment is impracticable, unnecessary, 
and contrary to public interest since it is based on removing a 
duplicative CFR part.
    Removal of this part does not add or reduce the burden or cost on 
the public in any way. The cost of disposal of surplus property will 
remain the same with removal of the part.
    This rule is not significant under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, 
``Regulatory Planning and Review,'' therefore, E.O. 13771, ``Reducing 
Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs'' does not apply.

List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 736

    Surplus Government property.

PART 736--[REMOVED]

0
Accordingly, by the authority of 5 U.S.C. 301, 32 CFR part 736 is 
removed.

    Dated: June 12, 2018.
E.K. Baldini,
Lieutenant Commander, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, 
Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 2018-13409 Filed 6-21-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                         142,100
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  791,500
<ALLOWANCES>                                    34,900
<INVENTORY>                                    650,200
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,235,800
<PP&E>                                       2,709,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,154,300
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,453,100
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,427,900
<BONDS>                                      2,498,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          132,700
<PREFERRED>                                     46,500
<COMMON>                                       266,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     707,100
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,453,100
<SALES>                                      1,872,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,872,000
<CGS>                                        1,393,300
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  314,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                43,700
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              66,100
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 54,900
<INCOME-TAX>                                    33,700
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             21,200
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 31,300
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (10,100)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.28)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.23)
        

</TABLE>
#### Gary J. DUFRENE v. The AETNA CASUALTY & SURETY COMPANY and Aetna Insurance Co.

No. 54416.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 1, 1974.

In re: Gary J. Dufrene applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Jefferson, 286 So.2d 734.

It is ordered that the writ of review issue; that the Court of Appeal send up the record in duplicate of the case; and that. counsel for plaintiff and defendant be notified.
# Materials Not Included in **Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket**

Docket Number: FAA- 2012 - 0034 Directorate Identifier: 2011NM153AD

601R- 35 - 017, RA --- 6/9/11 ZODIAC A281001 - 25 - 01 --- 5/11/11 ZODIAC A282001 - 25 - 01, R2 --- 5/16/11 ZODIAC A283001 - 25 - 02, R1 --- 5/13/11 ZODIAC A284001 - 25 - 01 --- 5/11/11 ZODIAC 4591001 -25 - 07 --- 5/11/11 ZODIAC 4592001 -25 - 0 7, R2 --- 5/16/11 ZODIAC 4593001 -25 - 02, R1 --- 5/13/11 ZODIAC 4594001 -25 - 02, R2 --- 5/16/11

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the Supplemental AD Docket 

### MA **Y BE VIEWED AT:** Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate Rules Docket 1601 Lind Ave. SW., Renton, WA 98057 425.227.1221 **DURING THE HOURS OF:** 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Form Date: 03/05/2008
#### Ackerson et ux. *v.*Clair R. Quereau, Inc. et al., Appellants.

Argued March 15, 1934.

*53Before Trexler, P. J., Keller, Cunningham, Baldrige, Stadteeld, Parker and James, JJ.

*George F. Blewett,*and with him *Robert P. F. Maxwell,*for appellants.

*Carl E. Geuther,*for appellee.

April 16, 1934:

Opinion by

Keller, J.,

This is a claim for compensation made by the father and mother of an adult son, twenty-two years and two months old, who was killed October 3, 1931, by an accident while in the course of his employment with the defendant, Clair B. Quereau, Inc. They averred, in their claim, that they were dependent to some extent on the wages of their son at the time of the accident. The referee, and, on appeal, the board found that claimants were dependent to some extent on the son’s wages and made an award accordingly. Our duty,— the same as that of the court below, — is only to determine if there is any evidence in the record to support the finding. If there is, we must affirm: Morris v. Yough Coal & Supply Co., 266 Pa. 216, 109 A. 914.

The evidence of dependency is not as full or explicit as it might be; but the appellants are, to some extent, responsible for that, as well as the appellees. The *54testimony on behalf of the claimants was that the father earned $150 a month as a carpenter; that the son, now deceased, was unmarried and lived with them; that when he was employed he turned over to his mother, who managed the family finances, most of his wages, getting from her his spending money, as he asked for it. When so employed he paid ten dollars a week board, which was used in the maintenance of the home, and he frequently contributed more, which was used for the general needs of the family and was “figured into” the family budget. All of the money received by him from this defendant as wages had been thus turned over to his mother for family use. The claimants lived in their own home, which they purchased in 1925 at a cost of $4,500, against which there are mortgages of $3,800, — a first mortgage of $1,900, and a second, a building and loan association mortgage, of lilce amount, on which they pay $19.50 monthly. The defendants, if not satisfied with the foregoing evidence, might have required the claimants to testify in more detail as to the items constituting the family budget, or gone at more length into the family expenses for which the son’s wages were used. The taxes, insurance, repairs and mortgage interest on the house were proper items of family expense, and contributions by the son which were needed for these purposes were contributions to the ordinary “necessaries” of the claimants: Zedalis v. JeddoHighland Coal Co., 113 Pa. Superior Ct. 49.

On a review of the whole record we cannot say that there is no evidence to support the award, and the judgment is accordingly affirmed.
#### Jack Wesley TICE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. M-376.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Jan. 28, 1971.

Richard W. Ervin, III, Public Defender, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Michael J. Minerva, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The briefs and the record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and the appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the order of the lower court is affirmed. See Austin v. State, 160 So.2d 730 (Fla.App.1964), and Tice v. Wainwright, Case No. L-282 in the records of this court.

JOHNSON, C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD K. and RAWLS, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 23.1****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (FileNo. 333-62573, 333-102551 and 333-123409), Form S-3 (File No. 333-18613, 333-70773 and 333-46721)and Form SB-2 (File No. 333-115221) of Viseon, Inc. andsubsidiaries of our report dated August 12, 2005 (except as to Note14 at to which the date is August 23, 2005) included in Form 10-KSB for the year ended June 30, 2005.     /s/ VIRCHOW, KRAUSE & COMPANY, LLP**Minneapolis, Minnesota****September 30, 2005**
#### Joseph N. CLESI, III v. Wilhelmina Hoffman CLESI.

No. 46860.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Nov. 13, 1972.

Nat W. Bullard, Vicksburg, for appellant.

Prewitt & Braddock, Vicksburg, for ap-pellee.

Appeal from Chancery Court, Warren County; Ernest Kellner, Chancellor.

Before RODGERS, P. J., and JONES, INZER, SUGG and BROOM, JJ.

Affirmed.
#### Albert O. La BONTE, Appellant, v. Margaret M. La BONTE, Appellee.

No. 69-612.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 17, 1970.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Palm Beach County; Joseph P. Metzger, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                          17,639
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   63,310
<ALLOWANCES>                                    (1,100)
<INVENTORY>                                    120,160
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               210,006
<PP&E>                                         267,500
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (38,949)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 541,075
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           82,687
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           101
<OTHER-SE>                                     140,894
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   541,075
<SALES>                                        474,127
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               474,127
<CGS>                                          399,886
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  399,886
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                35,701
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   250
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              18,718
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 19,572
<INCOME-TAX>                                     8,841
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                  (9,150)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,581
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .16
        

</TABLE>
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Mack I. FRANK.

No. 60641.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 11, 1977.

In re: State of Louisiana applying for writ of certiorari.

Writ Granted. The petition of the relator in the above entitled and numbered case having been duly considered,

It is ordered that a Writ of Certiorari issue herein, directing the Honorable Frank A. Marullo, Jr., Judge of the Criminal District, Court for the Parish of Orleans, to transmit to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, on or before the 25th day of November, 1977, the record in duplicate, or a certified copy of the record in duplicate, of the proceedings complained of by the relator herein, to the end that the validity of said proceedings may be ascertained.

It is further ordered that the aforesaid Judge of said Court and the respondent through counsel shall show cause, in this court, on a date to be fixed by this Court, why the relief prayed for in the petition of the relator should not be granted.
#### Peter R. SMITH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-1017.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 28, 1971.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Broward County; James F. Minnet, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.