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

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-22-00173-CV

__________________

TEXAS WINDSTORM INSURANCE ASSOCIATION, Appellant

V.

KEVIN KELLY AND TIFFANY KELLY, Appellees

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 136th District Court

Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Cause No. D-203,415

__________________________________________________________________

ORDER

On May 19, 2022, the trial court signed an interlocutory order, which 

identifies controlling questions of law that, if resolved now, may materially advance 

the ultimate resolution of the lawsuit should this Court decide to grant the request 

and allow the matter to be argued by interlocutory appeal. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & 

Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(d) (Supp.); see also Tex. R. Civ. P. 168. On June 3, 2022, 

Texas Windstorm Insurance Association asked this Court for permission to appeal 

the interlocutory order the trial court signed on May 19, 2022. See Tex. R. App. P. 
2

28.3(a). The remaining partiesin the case, Kevin Kelly and Tiffany Kelly, responded

in support of the request. See Tex. R. App. P. 28.3(f).

The Court grants Texas Windstorm Insurance Association’s petition seeking 

review through a permissive appeal of the trial court’s May 19, 2022 Summary 

Judgment Order with Permission to Appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 28.3(k). We deem 

the notice of appeal to have been filed as of the date the Court renders this Order. Id. 

The record is due June 27, 2022. The brief of the appellant is due twenty days after 

the record is filed. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.6(a). The appellees’ brief is due twenty 

days after the appellant files its brief. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.6(b). The Clerk of the 

Court shall file a copy of this Order with the trial court’s clerk. See Tex. R. App. P. 

28.3(k).

ORDER ENTERED June 17, 2022.

PER CURIAM

Before Golemon, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

NICOLE KISSANE,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 17-50019

D.C. No. 3:15-cr-01928-LAB

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 18, 2017** 

Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

Nicole Kissane appeals the 21-month sentence imposed following her guilty

plea to conspiracy to violate the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act in violation of

18 U.S.C. § 43. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Kissane contends that the district court procedurally erred in imposing the

FILED

DEC 21 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
sentence because it relied on clearly erroneous facts, and did not consider or

address her arguments regarding sentencing disparity. We review for plain error,

see United States v. Rangel, 697 F.3d 795, 800 (9th Cir. 2012), and conclude that

there is none. Contrary to Kissane’s argument, the district court’s factual findings

were not clearly erroneous. The court did not treat her mitigating circumstances as

aggravating, but rather concluded that they did not justify the below-Guidelines

sentence that Kissane requested. Moreover, the court expressly considered

Kissane’s sentencing disparity arguments, as well as the other mitigating

circumstances she presented, and adequately explained the sentence. See United

States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). The court was not

required to compare Kissane’s sentence to sentences imposed in unrelated cases. 

See United States v. Treadwell, 593 F.3d 990, 1011-12 (9th Cir. 2010).

Kissane also contends that her sentence is substantively unreasonable. We

review for abuse of discretion. See Carty, 520 F.3d at 993. Given the deference

due to a district court’s sentencing determination and in light of the totality of the

circumstances, the within-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable. See

Carty, 520 F.3d at 995.

AFFIRMED.

2 17-50019
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

# AGENCY:

National Institutes of Health, HHS.

# ACTION:

Notice; correction.

# SUMMARY:

                        The Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health published a Notice in the                         **Federal Register**                         on July 27, 2018. That Notice inadvertently contained an error in the Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Table.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments, contact: Mary Anne Bright, Supervisory Public Health Advisor, CCPIB/OCPL, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Rockville, MD 20850, or call non-toll-free number 240-276-6647 or Email your request, including your address to:                         *brightma@mail.nih.gov.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    On July 27, 2018, the Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health published a Notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     on page 35669 (83 FR 35668) that inadvertently contained an error Table A. 12-1—Estimate of Annual Burden Hours. The purpose of this notice is to correct Table A. 12-1—Total Estimate of Annual Burden Hours from 1875 to 1865.                

Dated: August 7, 2018.

Karla C. Bailey,

Project Clearance Liaison, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health.

[FR Doc. 2018-17344 Filed 8-10-18; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

    We hereby consent to the use in this Registration Statement on Form S-4
("Registration Statement") of our report dated January 25, 2000 relating to the
consolidated financial statements of Zoran Corporation and our report dated
May 26, 2000 relating to the financial statements of PixelCam, Inc. We also
consent to the reference to us under the heading "Experts" in such Registration
Statement.

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
San Jose
September 18, 2000
#### Ed GLUCKER et al., Appellants, v. BEACHWOOD VILLAS, INC., a Florida corporation, et al., Appellees.

No. 73-1072.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Dec. 14, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 16, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
**Exhibit3.1**

 

**CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT**

**OF**

**CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION**

**OF**

**INVESTORS FINANCIAL SERVICES CORP.**

 

Investors Financial Services Corp. (the“Corporation”), a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of theGeneral Corporation Law of the State of Delaware (“GCL”), does hereby certifyas follows, pursuant to Section 242 of the GCL:

 

**FIRST:** That pursuant to the authority conferred upon the Board of Directors bythe Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation, the Board of Directors, ata meeting held on August 13, 2002, in accordance with Section 242 of the GCL,duly adopted a resolution (i) proposing an amendment to the Certificate ofIncorporation of the Corporation, (ii) declaring said amendment to be advisableand in the best interests of the Corporation’s stockholders and (iii) directingthat the matter be submitted to the stockholders of the Corporation for theapproval of said amendment.

 

**SECOND**: The amendment to the Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation wasduly adopted at the Annual Meeting of Stockholders of the Corporation held onApril 15, 2003, in accordance with Section 242 of the GCL.

 

**THIRD**: That in accordance with the aforementioned resolution, the Corporation’sCertificate of Incorporation is hereby amended by inserting at the end ofArticle NINTH thereof, the following new Article NINTH, paragraph 16:

 

16. Limitation of Indemnification.  Notwithstanding anything to the contrarycontained in this Article NINTH, no indemnification or insurance coverage providedfor hereunder shall exceed that permitted by applicable law.

 

**FOURTH**: That said amendment was dulyadopted in accordance with the provisions of Section 242 of the GCL.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF,Investors Financial Services Corp. has caused this certificate to be signed byKevin J. Sheehan, its Chief Executive Officer, as of this 16th dayof April, 2003.

 
|   |   | INVESTORS FINANCIAL SERVICES CORP. |
|--------|--------|------------------------------------|
|   |   |                               |   |
|   |   |                               |   |
|   |   | By:                                | /s/Kevin J.  Sheehan |
|   |   |                               | Name: | Kevin J. Sheehan |
|   |   |                               | Title: | Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
Exhibit 10.20

 

AMENDMENT 2009-1

to the

AECOM TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION

EXCESS BENEFIT PLAN

 

WHEREAS, AECOM Technology Corporation (“AECOM”) maintains the AECOM Technology Corporation Excess Benefit Plan (the “Excess Benefit Plan”), as amended and restated effective as of January 1, 2005;

 

WHEREAS, AECOM has the authority to amend the Excess Benefit Plan in accordance with the terms thereof;

 

NOW, THEREFORE, the following amendments are adopted, effective as of October 9, 2009.

 

1.                                      Article III of the Excess Benefit Plan is amended by adding the following new Section 3.7 to the end thereof:

 

“3.7                         Cessation of Benefit Accruals

 

Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, a Participant’s annual benefit under this Plan shall be calculated and frozen effective as of October 9, 2009 (the “Freeze Date”). No Participant shall accrue any additional benefits under this Plan after the Freeze Date.”

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, AECOM Technology Corporation has caused this Amendment to be executed on this 9th day of October, 2009 but to be effective as set forth above.

 

	
 
    	
AECOM TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
By:
    	
/s/ Christina Ching
    
	
 
    	
Name:
    	
Christina Ching
    
	
 
    	
Title:
    	
VP, Corporate Secretary
#### Sandra HELD et al., Appellants, v. Reuben LIVINE et al., Appellees.

No. 73-1041.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 25, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7718

LARRY BARRBENTON SIMMONS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

SEWALL SMITH, Warden; J. JOSEPH CURRAN, JR.,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge.

(CA-98-1681-JFM)

Submitted: February 25, 1999 Decided: March 10, 1999

Before HAMILTON, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Larry Barrbenton Simmons, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran,

Jr., Attorney General, Ann Norman Bosse, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY

GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Larry Barrbenton Simmons seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his 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 Simmons v. Smith, No. CA98-1681-JFM (D. Md. Nov. 10, 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
<PAGE>
 
                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.1
 
              CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS
 
  We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report (Form 10-
K) of Datametrics Corporation of our report dated December 8, 1995, included
in the 1995 Annual Report to Shareholders of Datametrics Corporation.
 
  Our audits also included the financial statement schedule of Datametrics
Corporation listed in Item 14(a). This schedule is the responsibility of the
Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion based on our
audits. In our opinion, the financial statement schedule referred to above,
when considered in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a
whole, presents fairly in all material respects, the information set forth
therein.
 
  We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-1469) pertaining to the Datametrics Employee
Savings Plan, the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-14969) pertaining to
the 1982 Stock Option Plan of Datametrics Corporation, the Registration
Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-14969) pertaining to the 1986 Stock Option Plan of
Datametrics Corporation, and in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-
78128) pertaining to the 1993 Directors' Option Plan and the Amended and
Restated 1993 Stock Option Plan of Datametrics Corporation of our report dated
December 8, 1995 with respect to the financial statements of Datametrics
Corporation incorporated herein by reference, and our report included in the
preceding paragraph with respect to the financial statement schedule included
in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) of Datametrics Corporation.
 
                                          Ernst & Young LLP
 
Woodland Hills, California
January 25, 1996
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

CERTIFICATION 

 

I, Anthony J. Bettencourt, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Verity, Inc.; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly presentin all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as definedin Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, includingits consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

 

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

 

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses inthe design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: October 8, 2004
STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO
                                  FIXED CHARGES
                                                                Exhibit 12

                                                                Twelve months
                                                                    ended
                                                                December 31,
                                                                    1998
                                                                ----------

Computation of Earnings:

Pretax income from continuing operations                            $180

Adjustments to income:

     Add:   Distributed income from less than
            50% owned companies                                        7

     Add:   Portion of rent expense representative
            of interest expense                                        6

     Add:   Interest incurred net of amounts
            capitalized                                              408

     Add:   Amortization of interest previously
            capitalized                                                1

     Add:   Amortization of debt issue costs and discount
            or premium on indebtedness                                 2
                                                               ---------
                   Earnings                                          604
                                                               ---------

Computation of Fixed Charges:

     Interest incurred                                              $414

     Amortization of debt issue costs and discount
       or premium on indebtedness                                      2

     Portion of rental expense representative
       of interest                                                     6

     Preferred stock dividend requirements                            29
                                                               ---------
                   Fixed Charges                                     451
                                                               ---------


              Ratio of Earnings to  Fixed Charges                    1.3
July 7, 2015

Mr. Toshitsune Yoshida

724 South Scientific Street

High Point, NC 27260

Dear Mr. Yoshida:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your 

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We entered your April 9, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-0949), but 

we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does not comply

with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, 

you must send us all of the following:

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.
2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brenda Robeson

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
DCAA Response to Public Comment on D O D - 201 4 - OS - 0 027 - 000 1 A singl e comment was received providing comments on a number of issues but nothing specific to the subject of this Privacy Act System of Records Notice. The subject System of Records Notice pertains to the deletion of the Defense Contract Audit Agency’s Personnel Security Data Files (RDCAA 152.2) system. This System of Records Notice is being deleted because the records in question are covered by the Office of the Secretary, DoD/Joint Staff , Joint Personnel Adjudication System (JPAS) System of Records Notice, which is a Department - wide System of Records Notice. The JPAS System of Records Notice will ensure that the privacy of our agency employees will be appropriately safeguarded .
#### G. H. CRAWFORD CO. FINANCIAL SERVICES, a South Carolina company, and L. N. Weissner, Appellants, v. Ivan J. GOCH, Appellee.

No. 71-215.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 11, 1971.

Patton, Kanner, Nadeau, Segal & Stobs, Miami, for appellants.

Richard L. Lapidus, Miami, for appellee.

Before PEARSON, C. J., and HENDRY and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed, see Carner v. Ratner, Fla.App.1968, 207 So.2d 310; Poling v. Petroleum Carrier Corporation, Fla.App.1967, 194 So.2d 925.
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 3030

To repeal the increase in the tax on transportation fuels made by the Revenue

Reconciliation Act of 1993.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 8, 1993

Mr. ZIMMER (for himself, Mr. LIGHTFOOT, and Mr. PORTMAN) introduced the

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To repeal the increase in the tax on transportation fuels

made by the Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1993.

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

3 SECTION 1. REPEAL OF TAX INCREASE ON TRANSPOR4 TATION FUELS.

5 Part IV of subchapter B of the Revenue Reconcili6 ation Act of 1993 is hereby repealed, and the Internal

7 Revenue Code of 1986 shall be applied and administered

8 as if such part (and the amendments made thereby) had

9 not been enacted.

Æ