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

P.O, BOX 12547, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711-2547
www. 3rdcoa.courts.state.tx.us
(512) 463-1733

JEFF L. ROSE, CHIEF JUSTICE JEFFREY D. KYLE, CLERK
DAVID PURYEAR, JUSTICE

BOB PEMBERTON, JUSTICE

MELISSA GOODWIN, JUSTICE

SCOTT K. FIELD, JUSTICE

CINDY OLSON BOURLAND, JUSTICE

April 17, 2015

Chief Justice Nathan Hecht
Supreme Court of Texas

201 W. 14" Street, Room 104
Austin, Texas 78701

RE: Seventh Court of Appeals Number: 07-15-00146-CV
— . Third Court of Appeals Number: —_ 03-15-00145-CV
Trial Court Case Number: D-1-GN-13-002356

Style: Mark Walters v. Brad Livingston, in his Official Capacity as Executive Director, Texas
Department of Criminal Justice
Dear Chief Justice Hecht:
Appellant has tendered a “Motion to Transfer” in the above cause. Having reviewed the

motion and subsequent response by the Seventh Court of Appeals, the Third Court concurs with the
Seventh Court and recommends the motion be denied.

Very truly yours,

Jeff L. Rose, Chief Justice

ce: Chief Justice Brian Quinn
Ms. Vivian Long
Mr. Mark Walters
Mr. Craig Jacobs
**Exhibit 35.2**

**Servicer Compliance Statement of Deere Credit Services, Inc.**

​

I, Steven N. Owenson, Senior Vice President and Finance Director of Deere Credit Services, Inc., state:

​

A review of Deere Credit Services, Inc.’s activities for the period from September 17, 2024 (the date of issuance of the John Deere Owner Trust 2024-C transaction subject to the requirements of Regulation AB) through October 27, 2024 (the “Reporting Period”) and of Deere Credit Services, Inc.’s performance under the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of September 17, 2024 among John Deere Capital Corporation, John Deere Receivables LLC and John Deere Owner Trust 2024-C has been made under my supervision, and to the best of my knowledge based on such review, Deere Credit Services, Inc. has fulfilled all its obligations under all relevant agreements in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.

​

​

| ​                | ​                     | ​                                    |
|------------------------|-----------------------------|--------------------------------------------|
| Date: January 10, 2025 | Deere Credit Services, Inc. |
| ​                | ​                     | ​                                    |
| ​                | By:                         | */s/ Steven N. Owenson*                    |
| ​                | ​                     | Steven N. Owenson                          |
| ​                | ​                     | Senior Vice President and Finance Director |
| ​                | ​                     | ​                                    |
| ​                | ​                     | ​                                    |

​

----
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 6, 2015

No. 04-14-00483-CV

Rowland MARTIN, Jr.,

Appellant

v.

Edward L. BRAVENEC and 1216 West Ave., Inc.,

Appellee

From the 285th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014-CI-07644

Honorable Dick Alcala, Judge Presiding

ORDER

The Appellant’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Amended Reply Brief is 

GRANTED. Tim is extended to April 8, 2015.

_________________________________

Jason Pulliam, Justice

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

court on this 6th day of April, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
<PAGE>
Exhibit 10.1

Summary of the Company's Bonus Plans under which some of the executive officers 
of the Company and certain other personnel of the subsidiaries are eligible to 
receive a bonus each year. 
     41

<PAGE>

1998 BRENTON BANKS, INC. BONUS PLANS

For 1998, the Company (Brenton Banks, Inc. and Subsidiaries) has bonus plans 
that cover executive officers, line of business managers, senior managers, 
market managers, and other key personnel.  The following chart summarizes the 
main features of these bonus plans:

Bonus potential (as percent of base pay):
     Executive officers                        37.50%        to       45.00%
     Line of business managers                 30.00%        to       35.00%
     Market managers                           30.00%        to       40.00%
     Senior managers and other key personnel   10.00%        to       37.50%

Bonus threshold for executive officers:
     Bonus achievement is tied to a consolidated earnings threshold of 
$20,000,000 whereby no bonus will be paid if this earnings threshold is not 
achieved.  For executive officers 50% to 100% of bonus is tied to consolidated 
net income.  The same tiered earnings bonus matrix applies to all employees 
who have a portion of their bonus tied to consolidated net income.  The tiered 
bonus matrix, for that portion of the bonus tired to net income, provides for 
no bonus unless net income exceeds $20,000,000 and provides for 100% of bonus 
to be earned when net income exceeds $21,000,000.

Bonus criteria:
     Bonus amounts are paid for achievement of certain pre-established 
financial and personal goals, the most significant of which are as follows:
     Consolidated net income
     Subsidiary or line of business controllable net income
     Sales goals
     Growth in loans
     Growth in core deposits
     Fee income generation
     Noninterest income
     Noninterest expense
     Customer portfolio profitability
     Key personal objectives

Bonus achievements:
Bonus amounts are earned ratably based on actual results compared to a tiered 
bonus achievement matrix.
     42
Official Listing of Approved Suppliers Under the Poultry Export Verification 

(PEV) Program for the European Union (EU) 

1/ Operation Type: Slaughterer (S), Fabricator (F), Processor (P), Further Processor (FP)

2/ Company approval under the PEV Program does not indicate EU export eligibility. EU export eligibility can be 

determined by checking the list of eligible plants in the FSIS export library at https://www.fsis.usda.gov/inspection/importexport/import-export-library/european-union

Page 1 of 1 

Last Revised February 14, 2023

Company Est. Number Type of 

Operation 1/

PEV Program Approval 

Information 2/

Jennie-O Turkey Store

1129 Main Street East 

Melrose, MN 56352 

Contact: Brock Streff 

Phone: (320) 214-2893

Email: bastreff@j-ots.com

P-544 S/P Effective Date: August 12, 2008
ACCEPTED12-14-00015-CVTWELFTH COURT OF APPEALSTYLER, TEXAS4/8/2015 5:58:23 PMCATHY LUSKCLERK
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I, Marina R. Denicoff, certify that on this 28th day of April, 2010, I did not cause a copy 

of the foregoing document to be served by first-class mail, postage prepaid, on all parties 

of record in STB Ex Parte No. 646 (Sub. No. 3). USDA attempted to obtain a list of 

parties of record, but was unable to obtain this list because no Notice of Intent to 

Participate was required. 

Marina R. Denicoff 

Acting Director 

Transportation Services Division 

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Washington, D.C. 20250
# C_2012326EN.01033701.xml

| 26.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/1

---

DECLARATIONS

DECLARATIONS

ANNEXED TO THE FINAL ACT OF THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE WHICH ADOPTED THE TREATY OF LISBON,

ANNEXED TO THE FINAL ACT OF THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE WHICH ADOPTED THE TREATY OF LISBON

signed on 13 December 2007

A.   DECLARATIONS CONCERNING PROVISIONS OF THE TREATIES

DECLARATIONS CONCERNING PROVISIONS OF THE TREATIES

25.   Declaration on Articles 75 and 215 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

Declaration on Articles 75 and 215 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

The Conference recalls that the respect for fundamental rights and freedoms implies, in particular, that proper attention is given to the protection and observance of the due process rights of the individuals or entities concerned. For this purpose and in order to guarantee a thorough judicial review of decisions subjecting an individual or entity to restrictive measures, such decisions must be based on clear and distinct criteria. These criteria should be tailored to the specifics of each restrictive measure.

---
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 10.11

                 GTECH CORPORATION EXECUTIVE PERQUISITES PROGRAM

GTECH offers an Executive Perquisite Program (EPP) to officers of GTECH Holdings
Corporation. EPP provides each covered executive with a lump sum payment of
$27,5000 (net of all taxes) at the start of the calendar year.

The plan is designed to maintain competitive compensation for our Key Executives
by allowing each participant the flexibility to avail of Executive Program(s)
best suited to their respective needs such as:

     -    Retirement
     -    Insurance
     -    Education
     -    Charitable Contributions
     -    Health/Fitness
ALASKA SEAFOOD C B I R E P L AC E M E NT P A G E

EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2013

- 0652

DCN: 000 90 CBI

T H E FO LL OW ING H AS BEE N R E M O V E D BE CAUSE IT

C O N T AINS C O N F ID E N T IAL B USIN E SS IN FO RMA T I O N

(C B I) P E R 4 0 C F R P ART 2

, SU B P ART B

.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-30620

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

KEVIN MORRIS

Defendant-Appellant

______________________

07-30657

______________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ANITA D MORRIS

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 1:06-CR-10030-4

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 23, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-30620 c/w 07-30657

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion

should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

2

Before WIENER, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

In these consolidated appeals, Kevin Morris appeals the sentence imposed

following his conviction for conspiracy to commit financial aid fraud and bank

fraud. Anita D. Morris appeals the sentence imposed following her conviction

for one count of conspiracy to commit financial aid fraud and bank fraud and one

substantive count of bank fraud. Both Kevin and Anita Morris argue that their

trial counsel were ineffective for failing to object to the sentence enhancement

imposed under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(8)(D). 

The record is not sufficiently developed to evaluate the substance of the

appellants’ claims on direct appeal. Therefore, we decline to address the

ineffective assistance of counsel claims, without prejudice to the appellants’

rights to raise them in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. See United States v. Cantwell,

470 F.3d 1087, 1091 (5th Cir. 2006). 

Accordingly, the judgments of the district court against Kevin Morris and

Anita D. Morris are AFFIRMED.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1378 

To provide that the authority to grant clemency for offenses against the 

District of Columbia shall be exercised in accordance with law enacted 

by the District of Columbia. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 26, 2019 

Ms. NORTON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Oversight and Reform 

A BILL 

To provide that the authority to grant clemency for offenses 

against the District of Columbia shall be exercised in 

accordance with law enacted by the District of Columbia. 

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 ‘‘District of Columbia 

5 Clemency Home Rule Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 1378 IH

1 SEC. 2. AUTHORITY TO GRANT CLEMENCY IN ACCORDANCE 

2 WITH DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA LAW FOR OF3 FENSES AGAINST DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 

4 (a) AUTHORITY DESCRIBED.—The authority to grant 

5 clemency for offenses against the District of Columbia 

6 shall be exercised by such person or persons, and under 

7 such terms and conditions, as may be provided under law 

8 enacted by the District of Columbia. 

9 (b) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this Act 

10 may be construed to affect any authority exercised by the 

11 President or the Mayor of the District of Columbia prior 

12 to the effective date of any law enacted by the District 

13 of Columbia pursuant to this Act with respect to the au14 thority to grant clemency for offenses against the District 

15 of Columbia. 

16 (c) CLEMENCY DEFINED.—In this Act, the term 

17 ‘‘clemency’’ means a pardon, reprieve, or commutation of 

18 sentence, or a remission of a fine or other financial pen19 alty. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

May 3, 2017

No. 04

- 17

- 00071

- CV

THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER AT SAN ANTONIO

, Appellant

v.

Armando HERNANDEZ

, Appellee

From the 288th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014

- CI

- 14282

Honorable Rosie Alvarado, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

The appellant ’ s motion for leave to withdraw counsel is hereby GRANTED.

_________________________________ Irene Rios , Justice

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

court on this 3rd day of May, 2017

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
# C_2012326EN.01004701.xml

| 26.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/1

---

CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

PART SEVEN

GENERAL AND FINAL PROVISIONS

GENERAL AND FINAL PROVISIONS

Article 353

Article 48(7) of the Treaty on European Union shall not apply to the following Articles:

| — | Article 311, third and fourth paragraphs, |
| --- | --- |

—

Article 311, third and fourth paragraphs,

| — | Article 312(2), first subparagraph, |
| --- | --- |

—

Article 312(2), first subparagraph,

| — | Article 352, and |
| --- | --- |

—

Article 352, and

| — | Article 354. |
| --- | --- |

—

Article 354.

---
ACCEPTED

04-15-00233-CV

FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS

SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS

4/20/2015 12:00:00 AM

KEITH HOTTLE

CLERK

 FILED IN 4th COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 04/18/2015 12:15:16 PM KEITH E. HOTTLE Clerk
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 Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. NJ13-8-000]

Take notice that on December 21, 2012, City of Anaheim, California submitted its tariff filing per 35.28(e): Anaheim 2013 TRBAA Update to be effective 1/1/2013.

Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.

                    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at                     *http://www.ferc.gov*. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.                

                    This filing is accessible on-line at                     *http://www.ferc.gov*, using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email                     *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov*, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.                

*Comment Date:*                     5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on January 11, 2013.                

Dated: January 2, 2013.

Kimberly D. Bose,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2013-00119 Filed 1-7-13; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
# C_2012326EN.01004701.xml

| 26.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/1

---

CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

PART SIX

INSTITUTIONAL AND FINANCIAL PROVISIONS

INSTITUTIONAL AND FINANCIAL PROVISIONS

TITLE I

INSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

INSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

CHAPTER 1

THE INSTITUTIONS

SECTION 5

SECTION 5

THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

Article 260

(ex Article 228 TEC)

(ex Article 228 TEC)

1.   If the Court of Justice of the European Union finds that a Member State has failed to fulfil an obligation under the Treaties, the State shall be required to take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment of the Court.

2.   If the Commission considers that the Member State concerned has not taken the necessary measures to comply with the judgment of the Court, it may bring the case before the Court after giving that State the opportunity to submit its observations. It shall specify the amount of the lump sum or penalty payment to be paid by the Member State concerned which it considers appropriate in the circumstances.

If the Court finds that the Member State concerned has not complied with its judgment it may impose a lump sum or penalty payment on it.

This procedure shall be without prejudice to Article 259.

3.   When the Commission brings a case before the Court pursuant to Article 258 on the grounds that the Member State concerned has failed to fulfil its obligation to notify measures transposing a directive adopted under a legislative procedure, it may, when it deems appropriate, specify the amount of the lump sum or penalty payment to be paid by the Member State concerned which it considers appropriate in the circumstances.

If the Court finds that there is an infringement it may impose a lump sum or penalty payment on the Member State concerned not exceeding the amount specified by the Commission. The payment obligation shall take effect on the date set by the Court in its judgment.

---
1

NO. 03-14-00088-CR

03-14-00408-CR

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRD DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

DARIUS DONTAE LOVINGS § APPELLANT

VS. §

THE STATE OF TEXAS § APPELLEE

APPEAL FROM THE 390TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS

CAUSE NO. D1-DC-12-301231 and D1-DC-12-203247

STATE'S FIRST MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS:

The State of Texas respectfully moves for an extension of the deadline for filing

the State’s brief and, in accordance with Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 38.6 and

10.5(b), advises the Court as follows:

(a) Following his convictions for Murder and Aggravated Robbery, the

appellant filed his notice of appeal in the above causes on February 10, 2014, and June

18, 2014. Appellant’s counsel filed a brief on March 18, 2015.

ACCEPTED

03-14-00408-CR

4927299

THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

4/17/2015 9:17:03 AM

JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK

 FILED IN 3rd COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 4/17/2015 9:17:03 AM JEFFREY D. KYLE Clerk
2

(c) The State’s brief is currently due on April 17, 2015.

(c) This request is that the deadline for filing the State’s brief be extended by

30 days.

(d) The number of previous extensions of time granted for submission of the

State’s brief is: none.

(e) The State relies upon the following facts to reasonably explain the need

for an extension of the deadline:

1. During the period since this brief was filed, the attorney assigned to this case

has been working on other pressing appellate matters and has not had

sufficient time to prepare an adequate response to this brief.

2. This request is not made for the purpose of delay, but to ensure that the

Court has a proper State’s brief to aid in the just disposition of the above

cause.
3

WHEREFORE, the State of Texas respectfully requests that the deadline for

filing the State’s brief be extended to May 18, 2015.

Respectfully submitted,

ROSEMARY LEHMBERG

District Attorney

Travis County, Texas

/s/ Kathryn A. Scales

Kathryn A. Scales

Assistant District Attorney

State Bar No. 00789128

P.O. Box 1748

Austin, Texas 78767

(512) 854-9400

Fax No. 854-4810

Kathryn.Scales@traviscountytx.gov

AppellateTCDA@traviscountytx.gov
4

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.4(i), I hereby certify, based

upon the computer program used to generate this motion, that this motion contains

233 words, excluding words contained in those parts of the motion that Rule 9.4(i)

exempts from inclusion in the word count. I certify, further, that this motion is

printed in a conventional, 14-point typeface.

/s/ Kathryn A. Scales

Kathryn A. Scales

Assistant District Attorney

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that, on the 17th day of April, 2015, a true and correct copy of

this motion was served, by U.S. mail, electronic mail, facsimile, or electronically

through the electronic filing manager, to the Appellant’s attorney, Paul Evans,

Attorney at Law, 811 Nueces Street, Austin, Texas 78701-2215.

/s/ Kathryn A. Scales

Kathryn A. Scales

Assistant District Attorney
OPSIS Data

May-11

Line 1, Room 6 Date Lbs TF/Day Lbs HF/Day

Run 1 5/4-6/11 233.4 115.6

Run 2 5/11-13/11 250.2 122.7

Run 3 5/18-20/11 261.7 122.6

Run 4 5/25-27/11 194.2 97.9

Line 5, Room 20 Date Lbs TF/Day Lbs HF/Day

Run 1 5/4-6/11 337.1 120.1

Run 2 5/11-13/11 174.9 80.4

Run 3 5/18-20/11 166.3 75.8

Sample technique: EPA Method 14, OPSIS CEM

Duration of sample: 48 hours

Production rate, Line 1: 128 tons per day

Production rate, Line 5: 161 tons per day

Potroom operations: Normal - full pot cycle.

Method 14 Data

May-11
|Exhibit 21                                               
|---------------------------------------------------------
|Subsidiaries                                             
|Avcon Industries, Inc., a Kansas Corporation             
|Butler National Services, Inc., a Florida Corporation    
|BCS Design, Inc., a Kansas Corporation                   
|Butler National, Inc., a Nevada Corporation              
|Butler Temporary Services, Inc., a Missouri Corporation  
|Butler National Corporation, a Nebraska Corporation      
|Kansas International Inc., a Kansas Corporation          
|Butler National Service Corporation, a Kansas Corporation
|AVT Corporation, a Texas Corporation                     
|Indian Gaming Corporation, a Kansas Corporation          
|HMRS Holdings, LLC, a Kansas Corporation