alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO. 09-12-00464-CV

____________________

IN THE INTEREST OF A.K.M., J.D.M., AND D.M.M.

_______________________________________________________ ______________

On Appeal from the 252nd District Court 

Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Cause No. F-201,904-H 

________________________________________________________ _____________

ORDER

On April 11, 2013, we abated the appeal and remanded the case to the trial 

court for a hearing to settle a dispute regarding the reporter’s record. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 34.6(e). A supplemental clerk’s record, which includes the exhibits found 

by the trial court to accurately duplicate the original exhibits, has been filed. See

Tex. R. App. P. 34.6(f)(4). We have been notified that the appellant has requested 

additional supplementation of exhibits from hearings conducted on October 27, 

2011 and April 18, 2012. See Tex. R. App. P. 34.6(d). A request for access by 

appellate counsel to the sealed record has also been filed.
2

It is, therefore, ORDERED that the appeal is reinstated. The record may be 

supplemented as requested by the parties. Counsel of record for the appellant and 

the appellee may obtain access to the sealed record, including the sealed reporters 

record and exhibits for the April 18, 2012 Motion to Enter Orders, by making an 

appointment in advance with the Clerk of the Court for counsel of record to review 

the record at the Court of Appeals during regular business hours. The brief of the 

appellant is due June 17, 2013.

ORDER ENTERED May 16, 2013.

 PER CURIAM

 

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 10.11

February 27, 2001

Ms. Sarah Barpoulis, Senior Vice President Power
PG&E National Energy Group
9828 Wilden Lane
Potomac, MD 20854

Dear Sarah:

You are an essential member of our senior executive team and I view your
contribution as vital to getting the Corporation through its current challenges,
achieving the Corporation's objectives, and providing strong returns to
shareholders.

The Board of Directors recently approved a Senior Executive Retention program
which includes you.  Under this program, you will receive a grant of phantom
PG&E Corporation restricted stock units granted under the PG&E Corporation Long-
Term Incentive Plan.  The amount of your grant is $1,250,000 and it translates
into 95,715 units calculated at the closing price of PG&E Corporation common
stock on February 21, 2001, of $13.06 per share.  An extremely small number of
individuals are included in this arrangement.  For this reason, it is absolutely
necessary for you to restrict any conversation on this subject to me, Brent
Stanley, or Tom Boren.

Your grant of phantom PG&E Corporation restricted stock units is effective
February 21, 2001, and will vest on December 31, 2004, subject to either one of
the following conditions:

     -    50 percent will automatically vest on December 31, 2004. The remaining
          50 percent will vest on December 31, 2004 only if the Corporation's
          performance, as measured by relative Total Shareholder Return (TSR) on
          a cumulative basis over four years, is at or above the 55th percentile
          of its comparator group; or

     -    if, at the end of the third year of the grant, December 31, 2003, the
          Corporation's performance as measured by relative TSR on a cumulative
          basis, is at or above the 75th percentile of its comparator group, the
          entire grant will vest.

You may elect to defer your actual award payments under the PG&E Corporation
Supplemental Retirement Savings Plan prior to the award cliff-vesting.  Such
deferrals will be made in PG&E Corporation phantom stock units on the first
business day of January of the year following vesting.  Awards not deferred will
be paid in cash in January of the year following vesting.

If a monetizing event occurs (i.e., IPO or sale) which affects NEG, you will be
given the opportunity of exchanging your grant of phantom PG&E corporation stock
units under this program for an equity-type interest of comparable value in the
new entity.

Sarah, I look forward to your continued strong contributions to PG&E
Corporation's success.

Sincerely,


/s/ Robert D. Glynn, Jr.
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

MAY 19, 2009

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 08-16231

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 05-80133-CR-JIC

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ANTHONY DIGGS,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

_________________________

(May 19, 2009)

Before CARNES, MARCUS, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Anthony Diggs, through counsel, appeals the district court’s order denying
his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a sentence reduction. Diggs’s motion was

based on Amendment 706 to the sentencing guidelines, which reduced the base

offense levels applicable to crack cocaine offenses. Diggs now concedes that he is

ineligible for a sentence reduction under Amendment 706 because he was

sentenced as a career offender under United States Sentencing Guidelines § 4B1.1,

but he seeks to preserve his claim that the district court erred for further review.

As Diggs concedes, the district court did not err in denying his motion for

sentence reduction because he was sentenced as a career offender, and thus the

crack cocaine offense level played no ultimate role in his sentence. See United

States v. Moore, 541 F.3d 1323, 1330 (11th Cir. 2008) (“Where a retroactively

applicable guideline amendment reduces a defendant’s base offense level, but does

not alter the sentencing range upon which his or her sentence was based,

§ 3582(c)(2) does not authorize a reduction in sentence. Here, although

Amendment 706 would reduce the base offense levels applicable to the defendants,

it would not affect their guideline ranges because they were sentenced as career

offenders under § 4B1.1.”), cert. denied, McFadden v. United States, 129 S. Ct.

965 (2009).

AFFIRMED.

2
# Official Journal L 302/2007

| | ISSN 1725-2555 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 302 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 5020 November 2007 |

ISSN 1725-2555

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 302

English edition

Legislation

Volume 5020 November 2007

---

| Contents | | II   Acts adopted under the EC Treaty/Euratom Treaty whose publication is not obligatory | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | BUDGETS |
| | | European Parliament |
| | | 2007/721/EC, Euratom |
| | * | Final adoption of amending budget No 5 of the European Union for the financial year 2007 | 1 |

Contents

II   Acts adopted under the EC Treaty/Euratom Treaty whose publication is not obligatory

page

BUDGETS

European Parliament

2007/721/EC, Euratom

*

Final adoption of amending budget No 5 of the European Union for the financial year 2007

1

All amounts in this budget document are expressed in euro unless otherwise indicated.Any revenue provided for in Article 18(1) of the Financial Regulation, entered in Titles 5 and 6 of the statement of revenue, may lead to additional appropriations being entered on the headings which bore the initial expenditure giving rise to the corresponding revenue.Figures for out-turn refer to all authorised appropriations, including budget appropriations, additional appropriations and earmarked revenue.

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7460

CASSANDRA LEAH HARRIS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; THOMAS N. FAUST, Warden, Arlington

Detention Facility,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CA-98-1135-AM)

Submitted: April 6, 1999 Decided: April 19, 1999

Before ERVIN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Cassandra Leah Harris, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* Although the district court’s judgment or order is marked as

“filed” on Sept. 3, 1998, the district court’s records show that it

was entered on the docket sheet on Sept. 4, 1999. Pursuant to

Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is

the date that the judgment or order was entered on the docket sheet

that we take as the effective date of the district court’s

decision. See Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir.

1986).

2

PER CURIAM:

Cassandra Leah Harris seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on her petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254

(West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on

the reasoning of the district court. See Harris v. Attorney General, No. CA-98-1135-AM (E.D. Va. Sept. 4, 1998*). We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
condensed consolidated financial statements included in the Company's Form 10-Q
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such condensed consolidated
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          54,487
<SECURITIES>                                    47,553
<RECEIVABLES>                                   21,492
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,364
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               126,552
<PP&E>                                          12,504
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,958
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 134,098
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           21,789
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     111,891
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   134,098
<SALES>                                         37,190
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                53,303
<CGS>                                            1,629
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    8,315
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 8,020
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  42
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 17,036
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,088
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    10,948
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.41
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.36


</TABLE>
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-03-00719-CR

Ex parte Kevin J. Mayhew

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 264TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 55359, HONORABLE RICK MORRIS, JUDGE PRESIDING

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

Kevin J. Mayhew applied for a writ of habeas corpus to contest his extradition to

Arkansas. The writ issued and, after a hearing, the relief sought was denied. This appeal followed.

Documents contained in a recently filed supplemental clerk’s record reflect that

Mayhew wasreleased into the custody of Arkansas police on November 23, 2003, two days after the

habeas corpus hearing and two days before his attorney filed the notice of appeal. Apparently, no

effort was made to stay extradition pending appeal. Under the circumstances, the appeal is moot.

Ex parte Stowell, 940 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.).
2

The appeal is dismissed.

__________________________________________

David Puryear, Justice

Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Patterson and Puryear

Dismissed

Filed: June 10, 2004

Do Not Publish
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Appellate case name: Arthur David Lowe v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-18-00753-CR, 01-18-00754-CR

Trial court case number: 659154, 659156

Trial court: 339th District Court of Harris County

Appellant Arthur David Lowe filed a motion requesting this Court to forward the record 

of his appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeals following his filing of a petition for discretionary 

review on October 4, 2018. The records were forwarded electronically to the Court of Criminal 

Appeals on October 5, 2018. The relief Lowe requested in his order has already been granted, 

and, accordingly, the Court dismisses the motion as moot.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: __/s/ Evelyn V. Keyes____________________

Acting individually 

Date: __November 8, 2018____________
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1933/2005

of 24 November 2005         

concerning tenders notified in response to the invitation to tender for the export of barley issued in Regulation (EC) No 1058/2005

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 of 29 September 2003 on the common organisation of the market in cereals (1), and in particular Article 13(3) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

No action shall be taken on the tenders notified from 18 to 24 November 2005 in response to the invitation to tender for the refund for the export of barley issued in Regulation (EC) No 1058/2005.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 25 November 2005.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 24 November 2005.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL            

Member of the Commission

----

(1)OJ L 270, 21.10.2003, p. 78. Regulation as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1154/2005 (OJ L 187, 19.7.2005, p. 11).

(2)OJ L 174, 7.7.2005, p. 12.

(3)OJ L 147, 30.6.1995, p. 7. Regulation as last modified by Regulation (EC) No 777/2004 (OJ L 123, 27.4.2004, p. 50).

----
#### J. Elisha FORTENBERRY and J. E. Fortenberry, Jr. v. W. M. DAVENPORT.

No. 45419.

Supremo Court of Mississippi.

Sept. 29, 1969.

Mounger & Mounger, Tylertown, for appellants.

Norman B. Gillis, Jr., McComb, for appellee.

JONES, Justice.

This was a suit by appellee seeking the reformation of a deed of trust executed by the Fortenberrys, and, also, foreclosure thereof. The chancellor entered a decree for reformation, fixed the amount due, and ordered foreclosure.

There are four assignments of error, three of which involve questions of fact presented by the proof and determined by the chancellor. We cannot say he was manifestly wrong.

The other assignment involves a legal question which we consider without merit, and, therefore do not discuss.

The case is affirmed and remanded for further appropriate proceedings.

Affirmed and remanded.

ETHRIDGE, C. J., and RODGERS, BRADY, and INZER, JJ., concur.
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 977

To make permanent the authority to transfer revenues attributable to the

taxation of certain railroad retirement benefits to the Railroad Retirement Account.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 18, 1993

Mr. JACOBS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Ways and Means

A BILL

To make permanent the authority to transfer revenues attributable to the taxation of certain railroad retirement benefits to the Railroad Retirement Account.

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

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN TRANSFERS TO RAILROAD RETIRE4 MENT ACCOUNT.

5 Subsection (c)(1)(A) of section 224 of the Railroad

6 Retirement Solvency Act of 1983 (relating to section 72(r)

7 revenue increase transferred to certain railroad accounts)

8 is amended by striking ‘‘with respect to benefits received

9 before October 1, 1992’’.
2

•HR 977 IH

Æ
Exhibit 10.02



              GENERAL EMPLOYMENT ENTERPRISES, INC.
               REGIONAL VICE PRESIDENT BONUS PLAN
EFFECTIVE FOR FISCAL YEARS BEGINNING ON OR AFTER OCTOBER 1, 2001




The regional Vice President shall receive annually a bonus amount
equal to a percentage of his or her base salary in effect during
the bonus year.  The percentage to be used shall be the sum of
two bonus rates, determined as follows:

1.   Income bonus rate - The income bonus rate shall be 5%
     multiplied by the ratio of eligible pre-bonus income per
     $1,000,000 or fraction thereof.

2.   Income improvement bonus rate - The income improvement bonus
     rate shall be 20% multiplied by the ratio of the improvement in
     eligible pre-bonus income per $1,000,000 or fraction thereof.

For purposes of these calculations, the eligible pre-bonus income
means the fiscal year income of the VP's region, before deduction
of income taxes and before deduction of the VP bonus itself, that
is in excess of $1,000,000.  Improvement means the amount of
increase in eligible pre-bonus income for the bonus year compared
with the immediately preceding year.  In calculating the bonus
rates, pre-bonus losses and negative improvement amounts shall be
treated as "zero."

The maximum percentage for the two bonus rates combined shall not
exceed 200%.

The corporation shall pay the bonus to the VP annually, within 30
days following the completion of the audit of its consolidated
financial statements by its independent auditors.
**EXHIBIT 99.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANTTO**

**SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Friendly Ice Cream Corporation (the “Company”)for the period ended June 29, 2003 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, John L. Cutter, as ChiefExecutive Officer and President of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that:

 

1)              The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

 

2)              The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

 
|   | By:                                                | /s/ JOHN L. CUTTER |   |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------|--------------------|--------|
|   | Name:   John L. Cutter                   |               |
|   | Title:  Chief Executive Officer and President |               |
|   | Date:  July 24, 2003                          |               |

 

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company andwill be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

 

----
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1

Certification Pursuant to

18 U.S.C. Section 1350,


as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906


of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


Not Filed Pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Friedman Industries,
Incorporated (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the
period ending September 30, 2005, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Jack Friedman, Chairman of the Board and
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, 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;
and

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

Dated: November 14, 2005



| |                     
| | --------------------
| | By /s/ JACK FRIEDMAN
| |                     
| | Name: Jack Friedman 

| |        |                                                  
| | ------ | -------------------------------------------------
| | Title: | Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
#### Gary Thomas WHITE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-432.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

Oct. 9, 1969.

Appeal dismissed.
IV

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 157

Referring the bill (H.R. 1752) for the relief of Sergeant Major Earnest

Sands (Retired) and Roger Sands to the chief judge of the United

States Claims Court.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 21, 1993

Mr. HYDE submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on the Judiciary

RESOLUTION

Referring the bill (H.R. 1752) for the relief of Sergeant

Major Earnest Sands (Retired) and Roger Sands to the

chief judge of the United States Claims Court.

1 Resolved, That the bill (H.R. 1752) entitled ‘‘A bill

2 for the relief of Sergeant Major Earnest Sands (Retired)

3 and Roger Sands’’, now pending in the House of Rep4 resentatives, together with all accompanying papers, is re5 ferred to the chief judge of the United States Claims

6 Court pursuant to section 1492 of title 28, United States

7 Code, for proceedings in accordance with section 2509 of

8 such title.

Æ
#### Mabel J. BLAIR, A. Fred Blair, Howard Blair, J. B. Dryden, Ruth D. Hale, Dorris D. Miller and Louise D. Duke, Petitioners, v. Theodore V. RAMSEY, Respondent.

No. 40959.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 14, 1971.

Rehearing Denied July 12, 1971.

Certiorari denied. 245 So.2d 285.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, ADKINS and DEKLE, JJ., concur.