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

NO. 03-16-00533-CV

In re Leonard Shane Prudhomme

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM TRAVIS COUNTY

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

Relator Leonard Shane Prudhomme filed his petition for writ of mandamus,

challenging the trial court’s denial of his plea to the jurisdiction in a child-custody suit. See Tex. R.

App. P. 52.1. Having reviewed the petition, the record, and the response, we deny the petition for

writ of mandamus. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8.

While relator’s petition was pending, the real partyin interest,KimberlyPrudhomme,

filed a Motion to Strike and for Sanctions, requesting that this Court strike documents in the

mandamus record and impose sanctions on relator. Because we deny relator’s petition for writ of

mandamus, we dismiss real party in interest’s motion to strike as moot. We further deny real party

in interest’s motion for sanctions.

__________________________________________

Cindy Olson Bourland, Justice

Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Goodwin and Bourland

Filed: August 31, 2016
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1


                          SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY
<TABLE> 
<CAPTION>

                                                                                 Percentage
                                                                                 of Voting
                                                                                 Securities
             Name                        Address           Incorporation           Owned
----------------------------------    ---------------    -----------------   ----------------
<S>                                   <C>                <C>                 <C> 
Specialty Constructors, Inc.          Cedar Crest, NM           NM                 100%
Specialty Management, Inc.            Cedar Crest, NM           NV                 100%
Specialty Acquisitions, Inc.          Cedar Crest, NM           NV                 100%
Specialty Combined Resources, Inc.    Laguna Hills, CA          TX                 100%
Specialty Fortress, Inc.              Cedar Crest, NM           NV                 100%
Specialty Training, Inc.              Cedar Crest, NM           NV                 100%
Specialty Constructors East, Inc.     Cedar Crest, NM           NV                 100%
</TABLE>
----

----

I Meddelelser

Kommissionen

----

Den Europæiske Centralbanks rentesats for de vigtigste refinansieringstransaktioner (1):

2,05 % pr. 1. maj 2005

Euroens vekselkurs (2)

3. maj 2005

(2005/C 108/01)

1 euro= 

----

(1)  Rentesats for den seneste transaktion inden den angivne dato. Ved refinansieringstransaktioner til en variabel rente er rentesatsen den marginale rentesats.

(2)

Kilde: Referencekurs offentliggjort af Den Europæiske Centralbank.

----

----

DE EUROPÆISKE FÆLLESSKABERS ADMINISTRATIVE KOMMISSION FOR VANDRENDE ARBEJDSTAGERES SOCIALE SIKRING

Omregningskurser for valuta i henhold til Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 574/72

(2005/C 108/02)

Artikel 107, stk. 1, 2, 3 og 4, i forordning (EØF) nr. 574/72

Referenceperiode: april 2005

Anvendelsesperiode: juli, august og september 2005

----

Berigtigelser

----

Berigtigelse til meddelelse fra Kommissionen i forbindelse med gennemførelsen af Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets direktiv 97/23/EF af 29. maj 1997 om indbyrdes tilnærmelse af medlemsstaternes lovgivning om trykbærende udstyr (1)

(Den Europæiske Unions Tidende C 35 af 10. februar 2005)

(2005/C 108/03)

Side 6, tabellen, sjette række:

i stedet for:

læses:

----

(1)EFT L 181 af 9.7.1997, s. 1.

----
#### MARTIN v. TUCKER.

No. 39263.

Supreme Court of Florida.

March 1970.

Certiorari dismissed without opinion. 228 So.2d 640.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 598 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 598

 To prohibit royalty incentives for deepwater drilling, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 18, 2013

 Mrs. Feinstein (for herself and Mr. Nelson) introduced the following 
bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To prohibit royalty incentives for deepwater drilling, and for other 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Deepwater Drilling Royalty Relief 
Prohibition Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON ROYALTY INCENTIVES FOR DEEPWATER DRILLING.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
Secretary of the Interior shall not issue any oil or gas lease sale 
under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.) 
with royalty-based incentives in any tract located in water depths of 
400 meters or more on the outer Continental Shelf.
    (b) Royalty Relief for Deepwater Production.--Section 345 of the 
Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 15905) is repealed.
    (c) Royalty Relief.--Section 8(a)(3) of the Outer Continental Shelf 
Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)) is amended by adding at the end the 
following:
                    ``(D) Prohibition.--Notwithstanding subparagraphs 
                (A) through (C) or any other provision of law, the 
                Secretary shall not reduce or eliminate any royalty or 
                net profit share for any lease or unit located in water 
                depths of 400 meters or more on the outer Continental 
                Shelf.''.
    (d) Application.--This section and the amendments made by this 
section--
            (1) apply beginning with the first lease sale held on or 
        after the date of enactment of this Act for which a final 
        notice of sale has not been published as of that date; and
            (2) do not apply to a lease in effect on the date of 
        enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
(function ($, Drupal) {
  Drupal.behaviors.dhs_anchor_accordion_links = {
    attach: function (context, settings) {

        //Anchor links to accordions example page /visa-waiver-program#_ftn1

        //click link on page to anchor to a link inside accordion
        $('a[href*=\\#]').on('click', function (event) {

            var href = jQuery(this).attr('href'); //get anchor

            if ($('div.usa-section-accordion').length  > 0) {

                if (jQuery(href).closest('.usa-section-accordion').find('button')) {
                    var buttonid = '#' + jQuery(href).closest('.usa-section-accordion').find('button').attr('id');
                    var buttonariaid = '#' + jQuery(href).closest('.usa-section-accordion').find('button').attr('aria-controls');

                    $(buttonid).focus();
                    $(buttonid).attr("aria-expanded", "true");
                    $(buttonariaid).removeAttr("hidden");
                }
             }
        });

        // click link with anchor to inside paragraph coming from another page
        if (window.location.hash) {

            var href = window.location.hash;
            if ($('div.usa-section-accordion').length > 0) {

                if (jQuery(href).closest('.usa-section-accordion').find('button')) {
                    var buttonid = '#' + jQuery(href).closest('.usa-section-accordion').find('button').attr('id');
                    var buttonariaid = '#' + jQuery(href).closest('.usa-section-accordion').find('button').attr('aria-controls');

                    $(buttonid).focus();
                    $(buttonid).attr("aria-expanded", "true");
                    $(buttonariaid).removeAttr("hidden");
                }
            }
        }
    }
  };
}(jQuery, Drupal, drupalSettings));
# SILVERBERG 

# GOLDMAN& 

# BIKOFF, t.t.P.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW GEORGETOWN PLAcE • SuiTE !20 • llOl 30TH STREET, NW • WASHINGTON, D.C. 20007 VOICE (202) 944-JJQQ • fACSIMILE (202) 944-3306
November 12, 2014 

### VIA ELECTRONICSUBMISSION Mr. Robert Finamore Chief, Foreign Air Carrier Licensing Division Office ofInternational Aviation Department ofTransportation 1200 New Jersey Ave., S.E. Washington, D.C. 20590 Re: Notice ofAdditional Codesharing and Request for Waiver DocketDOT-OST-2011-0210 Dear Mr. Finamore: Counsel for AEROLANE, Lineas Aereas Nacionales del Ecuador S.A. d/b/a LAN Ecuador ("LAN Ecuador") has polled each ofthe carriers served with the Notice ofAdditional Codesharing and Request for Waiver ("Notice") filed jointly by American Airlines, Inc. ("American") and LAN Ecuador in the above-referenced Docket on November 7, 2014. The undersigned counsel hereby reports to the Department that the request for waiver ofthe 30-day advance notice requirement for additional codeshare services contained in the Notice is unopposed. Accordingly, the undersigned counsel for LAN Ecuador hereby respectfully requests that the Department act promptly on the waiver request so that LAN Ecuador and American can implementthe new codeshare services described in the Notice as soon as possible.

cc: Mr. Brett Kruger Howard Kass, Esq. RobertA. Wirick, Esq. Respectfully submitted, SILVERBERG, GOLDMAN & BIKOFF, L.L.P. Attorneys for



# LA~OR 

# /l/
#> By 

# kd-1

# ;!u_{_

Robert P. Silverberg )

All parties on attached Service List

### Jonathan.linde@united.com Steve.Morrissey@united.corn Dan.weiss@united.corn grnurphy@crowell.corn sascha.vanderbellen@delta.com chris.walker@delta.corn nssparks@fedex.com anbird@fedex.corn sllunsford@fedex.com gbleopard@fedex.corn cefelts@fedex.com Service List

rnsinick@ssd.com anita.mosner@hklaw.corn Jennifer.Nowak@hklaw.corn rpommer@atlasair.com jrichardson@johnlrichardson.corn jcanny@amerijet.corn john@mietuslaw.corn John.s.dtmcan@faa.gov cristinaSA@state.gov
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 7289** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,
v. AUNDRAE CANNON WHITE , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Florence
. Terry L. Wooten , District Judge. ( 4:09

- cr - 00075

- TLW

- 1; 4:12

- cv - 00333

- TLW )

Submitted : October 22, 2012 Decided: November 8, 2012

Before MOTZ, KING, and SH EDD , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Aundrae Cannon White, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Frank Daley, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Aundrae Cannon White seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifi cate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (2006) . A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006)
. When the district court denies relief on the m erits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutiona l right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that White has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appe al. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately3 presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-6624

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff – Appellee, 

 v. 

JOHN HOWARD HUDSON, a/k/a Nort, 

 Defendant – Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern 

District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. 

Copenhaver, Jr., District Judge. (2:99-cr-00048-1) 

Submitted: March 10, 2009 Decided: April 7, 2009 

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Michael T. Clifford, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. 

J. Patrick Rowan, Assistant Attorney General, Michael Mullaney, 

John W. Van Lonkhuyzen, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 

Washington, D.C., for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

 John Howard Hudson timely appeals the district court’s 

order denying his motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to 

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006), and motion to supplement. We have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, 

we affirm. United States v. Hudson, No. 2:99-cr-00048-1 (S.D. 

W. Va. Apr. 1, 2008). 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. 

AFFIRMED
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

Appeal of

- )

)

Gulf Pacific Contracting, LLC ) ASBCA No. 62995

)

Under Contract No. N40085

- 16

- D

- 8313 )

APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: Laurence J. Zielke , Esq.

Zielke Law Firm, PLLC

Louisville, KY

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Craig D. Jensen, Esq.

Navy Chief T rial Attorney

Jerry Kim , Esq.

Trial Attorney

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Appellant, Gulf Pacific Contracting

, LLC, appealed from a July 15, 2021

contrac ting officer's final decision. By letter dated September 2, 2021, that decision

has been rescinded and the government request s dismissal without prejudice. In an

October 1, 2021 email, appellant agreed with the g overnment’s motion to dismiss. We

dismiss the appeal as moot.

Dated: Octo ber 1 9 , 2021

RICHARD SHACKLEFORD

Administrative Judge

Acting Chairman

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 62995 , Appeal of Gulf

Pacific Contracting, LLC , rendered in conformance with the Board ’ s Charter.

Dated: October 19, 2021

PAULLA K. GATES

- LEWIS

Recorder, Armed Services

Board of Contract Appeals
#### Michael S. Lucas, Appellant, v Michael Swerdlow, Respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Francis N. Pécora, J.), entered July 11, 1990, which denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

*224Plaintiff sued defendant on theories of account stated and breach of contract, based upon a one-page handwritten agreement purporting to obligate defendant to pay plaintiff $600,000, plus a two percent interest, in the "Worldgate Partnership”. The agreement contained a clause providing: "Documentation of the above to be completed by 23rd October if at all possible.”

The submissions on plaintiffs motion for summary judgment raise factual issues which include ambiguity arising from the agreement itself, as well as issues relating to the nature of the documentation required by the agreement, whether that documentation was a condition of defendant’s obligation, and whether the agreement was induced by material misrepresentations on the part of plaintiff with regard to services rendered by him. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was properly denied. Concur—Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Kassal and Smith, JJ.
Exhibit 32 

Certification of CEO and CFO Pursuant to

18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

as Adopted Pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of TPG Specialty Lending, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Joshua Easterly and Michael Fishman, as Co-Chief Executive Officers of the Company, and Robert Ollwerther, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to such officer’s knowledge: 

(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. 

 

| /s/ Joshua Easterly |
|---------------------|
| Name:               |   | Joshua Easterly |
| Title:              |   | Co-Chief Executive Officer |
| Date:               |   | November 3, 2015 |

 

| /s/ Michael Fishman |
|---------------------|
| Name:               |   | Michael Fishman |
| Title:              |   | Co-Chief Executive Officer |
| Date:               |   | November 3, 2015 |

 

| /s/ Robert Ollwerther |
|-----------------------|
| Name:                 |   | Robert Ollwerther |
| Title:                |   | Chief Financial Officer |
| Date:                 |   | November 3, 2015 |

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
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).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ROBERTO ESCOBAR-MEJIA, a.k.a.

Roberto Escobar-Mejilla,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 09-73027

Agency No. A079-029-671

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 17, 2012** 

Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BEA, Circuit Judges. 

Roberto Escobar-Mejia, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se

for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from

an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding

FILED

APR 24 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-73027

of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We

have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the

agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.

2006). We deny the petition for review. 

Escobar-Mejia testified that he was shot at one time and verbally threatened

while working as a bus driver in Guatemala. Substantial evidence supports the

agency’s finding that Escobar-Mejia failed to establish past persecution or a wellfounded fear of persecution on account of an actual or imputed political opinion or

any other protected ground. See Ochave v. INS, 254 F.3d 859, 865-66 (9th Cir.

2001) (no nexus between rape by guerillas and a protected ground). Substantial

evidence also supports the agency’s finding that Escobar-Mejia failed to establish

that the government is unwilling or unable to protect him. See Nahrvani v.

Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2005) (German police took reports and

investigated incidents, but were unable to solve the crimes). Accordingly,

Escobar-Mejia’s asylum claim fails. 

Because Escobar-Mejia failed to meet the lower burden of proof for asylum,

his claim for withholding of removal necessarily fails. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at

1190.
3 09-73027

Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief

because Escobar-Mejia failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured

with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Guatemala. See

Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
Exhibit 32.2
 
 Certification of Principal Financial Officer
 Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
 Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
 
 In connection with the Quarterly Report of Plato Star Acquisition Corp. 1 (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Chi Wu, 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.


/s/ Chi WuChi Wu

Principal Principal Officer
EX-10.13



 Exhibit 10.13 

SPS Commerce, Inc. Non-Employee Director Compensation Policy  

Each non-management director of SPS Commerce, Inc. (the “Company”) will receive: 

 

	 	•	 	An initial stock option grant to purchase up to $111,000 of shares of our common stock in connection with appointment to the board calculated as the grant date fair value of the option computed in accordance with
Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) Accounting Standards Codification (ASC) Topic 718, Stock Compensation. Each grant will vest in equal monthly installments over three years for so long as the director remains a member of the board.


  

	 	•	 	An annual stock option grant to purchase up to $46,175 of common stock on the date of each annual meeting of stockholders at which the director is elected to the board or continues to serve as a director
calculated as the grant date fair value of the option computed in accordance with Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) Accounting Standards Codification (ASC) Topic 718, Stock Compensation. Each grant will vest in full on the earlier
of one year after the date of grant or the date of the next year’s annual meeting of stockholders, provided the director remains a member of the board as of the vesting date. 


 

	 	•	 	An annual restricted stock grant to acquire up to $46,175 of restricted common stock on the date of each annual meeting of stockholders at which the director is elected to the board or continues to serve as a
director calculated by dividing this amount by the closing sale price for a share of the Company’s common stock on the Nasdaq Global Market on the date of the Company’s annual meeting of stockholders. Vests in four equal installments on
the last day of each fiscal quarter with the first vesting occurring on June 30 of the year, provided the recipient remains a member of the board as of the vesting date. 


 

	 	•	 	An annual retainer of $27,500. 

 Each non-management director of the Company that chairs
of a committee will receive an annual fee as follows: 
  

					
	 Committee Chair
	  	Annual Cash Fee	 
	 Audit
	  	$	15,000	  
	 Compensation
	  	$	10,000	  
	 Nominating and Governance
	  	$	6,800	  

 Each non-management director of the Company, other than the chair, that serves on a committee will receive an
annual fee as follows: 
  

					
	 Non-Chair Committee Members
	  	Annual Cash Fee	 
	 Audit
	  	$	5,000	  
	 Compensation
	  	$	4,000	  
	 Nominating and Governance
	  	$	2,700	  

 The chairman of the Company’s board of directors will receive an additional annual fee of $12,000.