alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Motion Granted; Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed

September 30 , 2021
.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 21

- 00526

- CV

HARBOR AMERICA CENTRAL, INC. , Appellant
V.
WILLIAM REEVES , Appellee
On Appeal from the 55th District Court Harris Count y, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2017

- 25574

MEMORANDUM OPINION This is an appeal from a judgment signed August 31, 2021. On September 22, 2021, appellant filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1 (a)(1) . The motion is granted.
We dismi ss the appeal

. PER CURIAM
Panel c onsists of Justices Sp ain, Hassan , and Wilson

.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Seymour Karp, Appellant. Thomas F. Hartnett, as Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed February 23, 1990, which ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits, charged him with a recoverable overpayment of benefits, and imposed a forfeiture of effective days as a penalty in reduction of future benefits.

Claimant admitted that while he was receiving unemployment insurance benefits, he continued to visit the business premises, signed checks for the business, picked up and handled the mail, and participated in efforts to rent or sell the premises as well as the equipment for the business. This evidence supports the conclusion that claimant’s activities in connection with the closing down of the business were continuous and significant and that he therefore was not totally unemployed *(see, Matter of St. Germain [Ross]*78 AD2d 565; *Matter of Lieberman [Esmarco Contrs.—Catherwood]*20 AD2d 835). Furthermore, there is substantial evidence in the record to support the decision that claimant willfully made false statements to obtain benefits *(see, Matter of Muller [Levine]*50 AD2d 1005, *lv denied*40 NY2d 806) and that the benefits were recoverable (Labor Law § 597 [4]).

*944Decision affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Weiss, Mikoll, Crew III and Harvey, JJ., concur.
Exhibit




EXHIBIT 10.16










SCHEDULE OF CHANGE OF CONTROL AGREEMENTS (Tier II)


The following have executed Change of Control Agreements substantially in the form of the agreement attached as Exhibit 10.16 to Valero’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2013 (SEC File No. 1-13175).




Jay D. Browning
EX-10.17



 Exhibit 10.17 

[Grant Date] 
 [Name] 

[Address] 
 Re: Non-Employee Director Share Award Confirmation

 Dear [Name]: 
 This letter confirms that you have been
granted a Non-Employee Director Share Award under the Marriott Vacations Worldwide Corporation Stock and Cash Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) for the following number of Shares (as defined in the Plan): 

 

							
	 Number of Shares
	  	 	  	 	  	 
	 [            ]
	  		  		  	

 This Award will be recorded in a book-keeping account and represents your unsecured right to receive from the Company the
transfer of title to the specified number of Shares, as such number may be adjusted pursuant to the Plan, at such time as you have elected by designating in writing to the Company in the manner required by the Company for such election or, if no
such election is made, promptly following Termination of Service (as that term is defined in the Plan). Your right to the Shares is fully vested upon grant. 

Prior to the delivery of Shares to you, (i) your rights under this Award may not be transferred, pledged or hypothecated; and (ii) you will not have
any voting rights in the Shares subject to this Award. In the event a cash dividend is paid with respect to the Company’s common stock, a corresponding dividend equivalent payment will be paid to you in cash as of the payment date for such
dividend. 
 If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 407-206-6137. 

Sincerely, 
 Catherine M. Peffen, 

Vice President, Global Compensation & Benefits 
 Marriott
Vacations Worldwide Corporation
EXHIBIT 32


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, the
undersigned officer of Silverwood Acquisition Corporation
(the "Company"), hereby certify to my knowledge
that:

The Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30,
2012 of the Company fully complies, in all material respects,
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the
Report fairly represents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by
the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.


                             /s/ James Cassidy
                                 Chief Executive Officer
                                 Chief Financial Officer
Date: November 2, 2012
III 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 106 

Commending rehabilitation counselors and supporting the goals and ideals 

of National Rehabilitation Counselors Appreciation Day. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 23, 2013 

Mr. CASEY (for himself and Mr. CHAMBLISS) submitted the following 

resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Commending rehabilitation counselors and supporting the 

goals and ideals of National Rehabilitation Counselors 

Appreciation Day. 

Whereas rehabilitation counselors conduct assessments, provide counseling, support families, and plan and implement rehabilitation programs for individuals in need of 

rehabilitation; 

Whereas the purpose of professional organizations for rehabilitation counseling and education is to promote the improvement of rehabilitation services available to individuals with disabilities through quality education for counselors and rehabilitation research; 

Whereas various professional organizations have vigorously 

advocated up-to-date education and training and the 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 106 ATS 

maintenance of professional standards in the field of rehabilitation counseling and education, including— 

(1) the National Rehabilitation Association; 

(2) the Rehabilitation Counselors and Educators Association; 

(3) the National Council on Rehabilitation Education; 

(4) the National Rehabilitation Counseling Association; 

(5) the American Rehabilitation Counseling Association; 

(6) the Commission on Rehabilitation Counselor 

Certification; 

(7) the Council of State Administrators of Vocational Rehabilitation; and 

(8) the Council on Rehabilitation Education; 

Whereas, on March 22, 1983, Martha Walker of Kent State 

University, who was President of the National Council on 

Rehabilitation Education, testified before the Subcommittee on Select Education of the Committee on Education and Labor of the House of Representatives, and 

was instrumental in bringing the need for qualified rehabilitation counselors to the attention of Congress; 

Whereas the efforts of Martha Walker led to the enactment 

of laws that require rehabilitation counselors to have 

proper credentials, in order to provide a higher quality of 

service to those in need of rehabilitation; and 

Whereas March 22 is National Rehabilitation Counselors Appreciation Day: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) commends— 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•SRES 106 ATS 

1 (A) rehabilitation counselors, for the dedi2 cation and hard work rehabilitation counselors 

3 provide to individuals in need of rehabilitation; 

4 and 

5 (B) professional organizations, for the ef6 forts professional organizations have made to 

7 assist those who require rehabilitation; and 

8 (2) supports the goals and ideals of National 

9 Rehabilitation Counselors Appreciation Day. 

Æ 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 950 

To amend the Controlled Substances Act to allow a veterinarian to transport 

and dispense controlled substances in the usual course of veterinary 

practice outside of the registered location. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 14, 2013 

Mr. MORAN (for himself and Mr. KING) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend the Controlled Substances Act to allow a veterinarian to transport and dispense controlled substances 

in the usual course of veterinary practice outside of 

the registered location. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Veterinary Medicine 

5 Mobility Act of 2013’’. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

1 SEC. 2. TRANSPORT AND DISPENSING OF CONTROLLED 

2 SUBSTANCES IN THE USUAL COURSE OF VET3 ERINARY PRACTICE. 

4 Section 302(e) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 

5 U.S.C. 822(e)) is amended— 

6 (1) by striking ‘‘(e)’’ and inserting ‘‘(e)(1)’’; 

7 and 

8 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

9 ‘‘(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a registrant 

10 who is a veterinarian shall not be required to have a sepa11 rate registration in order to transport and dispense con12 trolled substances in the usual course of veterinary prac13 tice at a site other than the registrant’s registered prin14 cipal place of business or professional practice, so long as 

15 the site of dispensing is located in a State where the vet16 erinarian is licensed to practice veterinary medicine.’’. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLAImages

# DLA Images

Search

Search

                                  - All Images 
                                  - Other 

                                  - Upload Date
                                  - Photo Date
                                  - Title

Share

----

Download Image: Small ()Medium ()Full Size (0.08 MB)

Tags:DLA Aviaiton, police week

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
#### In the Matter of Adams Holding Corporation et al., Petitioners, against John Van Rosendaal, as Commissioner of Assessments and Building Inspector of the City of Poughkeepsie, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Dutchess County,

April 23, 1958.

*Edward J. Filipowics*for petitioners.

*Allen J. Weisman*for respondent.

James W. Bailey, J.

Petitioners make application for an order pursuant to article 78 of the Civil Practice Act directing *499respondent to issue a building permit for the erection of a gasoline service station.

A gasoline service station is a permitted use in a 0-2 district. Respondent does not deny that petitioner has a right to use her property for a gasoline service station but contends that this application is premature because the building inspector has not made a determination and such determination has not been reviewed by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Respondent also contends that petitioners have failed to submit new plans eliminating that portion thereof which shows lowering of the curbs.

The refusal by respondent to issue the permit which is authorized by the zoning ordinance constitutes a determination and is the proper subject of an article 78 proceeding. Recourse to the Zoning Board of Appeals is required pursuant to the zoning ordinance only when (1) an interpretation of the ordinance is involved (2) a special use permit is requested and (3) when a variance is sought. See sections 3.21, 3.22 and 3.23 of article III of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Poughkeepsie adopted March 2, 1953. The present application does not fall within the categories above set forth.

The respondent has no authority to grant a curb lowering permit and the granting of the permit to erect the gasoline service station in no way affects the lowering of the curb. Under such circumstances respondent may not withhold the issuance of the permit herein upon the ground that the plans show a lowering of the curb.

Application granted.

Submit order.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLAImages

# DLA Images

Search

Search

                                  - All Images 
                                  - Other 

                                  - Upload Date
                                  - Photo Date
                                  - Title

Share

----

Download Image: Small ()Medium ()Full Size (0.66 MB)

Tags:Carter G. Woodson

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
#### James O. MATTINGLY, Appellant, v. Dr. P. J. CICCONE, Director, United States Medical Center for Federal Prisoners, Springfield, Missouri, Appellee.

No. 74-1477.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 13, 1974.

Decided Sept. 23, 1974.

James 0. Mattingly, pro se.

Bert C. Hurn, U. S. Atty., Frederick, 0. Griffin, and Anthony P. Nugent, Jr., Asst. U. S. Attys., Kansas City, Mo., for appellee.

Before MATTHES, Senior Circuit Judge, and HEANEY and STEPHENSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

James Mattingly appeals from a final judgment denying his application for habeas corpus relief. In his application, Mattingly, a prisoner in the Springfield Medical Center, alleged that he was prejudiced in his living conditions at Springfield because a detainer had been lodged against him by the State of Kentucky.

The matter was referred by the court to the magistrate at Springfield, Mis*503souri. The magistrate held an eviden-tiary hearing and determined that the undisputed facts were as follows: that the defendant was charged by an indictment filed in Kentucky state court on October 15, 1973, with malicious shooting; that on January 2, 1974, the petitioner filed in that court a motion to dismiss the charges on the grounds of denial of due process and denial of speedy trial; that the petitioner’s motion was overruled by an order entered on April 1, 1974, with a trial date of June 21, 1974, being set on the pending charges; and that the defendant has been deprived of an opportunity to be transferred to a minimum custody unit because of the pending detainer. The magistrate recommended that the petition for habeas corpus be denied on the grounds that the petitioner had not been denied a speedy trial in Kentucky in view of the decision of the courts of that state to try the defendant on June 21, 1974. The District Court reviewed the recommendations of the magistrate and denied the writ.

We asked the parties to file additional briefs on the question of whether we are required to remand the matter to a District Court for an evidentiary hearing in the light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Wingo v. Wedding, 418 U.S. 461, 473, 94 S.Ct. 2842, 2849, 41 L.Ed.2d 879, 888 n. 19 (1974).

After reviewing the supplementary briefs and the record, we do not believe that a remand is required. The magistrate found that there were no disputed issues of fact and neither party questions that finding. Under such circumstances, no evidentiary hearing before a U. S. District Judge is required. *See*Noorlander v. United States Attorney General, 465 F.2d 1106, 1108 (8th Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 410 U.S. 938, 93 S.Ct. 1398, 35 L.Ed.2d 603 (1973), and cases cited therein; *cf.,*Procunier v. Atchley, 400 U.S. 446, 452, 91 S.Ct. 485, 27 L.Ed.2d 524 (1971).

The judgment of the District Court is modified by requiring that court to enter an order requiring the Springfield Medical Center to give the defendant the same opportunities given prisoners not subject to a detainer. *See,*Cooper v. Lockhart, 489 F.2d 308 (8th Cir. 1973). As so modified, the judgment is affirmed.
### Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA

- 

### FAA 20 07

- 0051 Directorate Identifier: 

### 20 07

- NE

- 37

- AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If they do not, click (or Tab) int o and then out of the changed cell

.

**Estimated Costs:**

Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Do not include on

condition costs here Costs per **Product** (e.g., aircraft, engine,

propeller, appliance) Work

- hours (include access, testing, and close

- up) Labo r

cost (@$8 5 /h our) Parts Cost Total Costs (labor + parts) Number of

**U.S. Registered**  **Products** Total Cost

for U.S. Fleet



### 50 Hour Inspection of Engines after 750 Hours, Time in Service 15.0 $ 1,275.0 0 $0 $ 1,275.00 6,000 $ 7,650,000.0 0



### Replace c yl inders not passing 50 Hour Inspection 5.0 $ 425.00 $1,200 $ 1,625.00 4,000 $ 6,500,000.0 0

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.0 0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0 .00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00


### The known number of products in compliance: Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $ 14,150,000 

### Costs covered under warranty ( if known ) $

**On**

**- Condition Costs:** 

Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Work

- hours

(include access, testing, and close

up) Labor cost

(@$85/hour) Parts Cost C ost per Product

$ 0.00 $ $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

### Special considerations for Economic Analysis ( Use this field to ex

plain anything in the Estimated Costs table that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs) 

### : 

### N/A

**Executive Order 12866:**
Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES * NO

* Explanation: **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:**
Is the AD significant?

YES * NO

* Explanation: **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? E xplain for

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO Explanation:

**Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:**
This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES * NO



### * Explanation 

### :