alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Michelle Griffith, Personal 

Representative of the Estate of 

Dell O. Amy, 

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 14, 2015

No. 04-15-00035-CV

ARK DIMENSION 4, INC. and Robert Pospisil,

Appellants

v.

Michelle GRIFFITH, Personal Representative of the Estate of Dell O. Amy, deceased,

Appellee

From the 216th Judicial District Court, Gillespie County, Texas

Trial Court No. 12575A

Honorable N. Keith Williams, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Appellants have responded to our show cause order with adequate proof that the motion 

for new trial was mailed on November 14, 2014 by certified mail, return receipt requested. 

Therefore, appellants’ notice of appeal was timely filed and we have jurisdiction. TEX. R. CIV. P.

5; TEX. R. APP. P. 25.1(a), 26.1(a)(1). This appeal is retained on the court’s docket.

The clerk’s record was filed on March 6, 2015. There being no reporter’s record, the 

appellants’ brief is due thirty (30) days from the date of this order. 

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

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

court on this 14th day of April, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
# 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

3.   Declaration on Article 8 of the Treaty on European Union

Declaration on Article 8 of the Treaty on European Union

The Union will take into account the particular situation of small-sized countries which maintain specific relations of proximity with it.

---
# 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 ONE

PRINCIPLES

PRINCIPLES

TITLE II

PROVISIONS HAVING GENERAL APPLICATION

PROVISIONS HAVING GENERAL APPLICATION

Article 14

(ex Article 16 TEC)

(ex Article 16 TEC)

Without prejudice to Article 4 of the Treaty on European Union or to Articles 93, 106 and 107 of this Treaty, and given the place occupied by services of general economic interest in the shared values of the Union as well as their role in promoting social and territorial cohesion, the Union and the Member States, each within their respective powers and within the scope of application of the Treaties, shall take care that such services operate on the basis of principles and conditions, particularly economic and financial conditions, which enable them to fulfil their missions. The European Parliament and the Council, acting by means of regulations in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, shall establish these principles and set these conditions without prejudice to the competence of Member States, in compliance with the Treaties, to provide, to commission and to fund such services.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>   5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE BALANCE SHEETS, STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND STATEMENTS
OF CASH FLOW FILED AS PART OF ALTEON'S QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM
10-Q FOR THE QUERTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              9-MOS     
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                    DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                         SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                16,843,976
<SECURITIES>                           3,482,712
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                      20,947,915
<PP&E>                                 3,335,816
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                        25,287,870
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                  8,511,636
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                   21
<COMMON>                                 165,160
<OTHER-SE>                            16,611,053
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>          25,287,870
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                       1,206,651
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                      21,797,405
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        20,983
<INCOME-PRETAX>                     (20,611,737)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                 (20,611,737)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                        (20,611,737)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                             (1.31)
<EPS-DILUTED>                             (1.31)
        

</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of the Claim of George S. Taylor, Appellant, v Vassar College, Respondent. Workers’ Compensation Board, Respondent.

—Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed July 20, 1990, which ruled that claimant was not discriminated against by his employer.

There is substantial evidence in the record to support the conclusion by the Workers’ Compensation Board that claimant failed to establish that he was discharged because he had filed or was attempting to file for workers’ compensation benefits *(see, Matter of Solomon v Cohn, Glickstein, Lurie, Ostrin & Lubell,*97 AD2d 561). As noted by the Board, there was evidence of disciplinary actions taken against claimant and *949the record fails to show the required nexus between claimant’s claim for benefits and his dismissal *(see, Matter of Klimczak v General Crushed Stone Co.,*114 AD2d 603). We have considered claimant’s remaining contentions and find them to be lacking in merit.

Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Weiss, Levine and Mercure, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
<PAGE>

                     CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation of our
reports dated February 5, 1999 included (or incorporated by reference) in this
Form 10-K into Dole Food Company, Inc.'s previously filed Registration
Statements on Form S-3 Registration Nos. 33-41480, 33-64984, 333-07849, and
333-61689; Form S-8 Registration Nos. 2-87475, 33-594, 33-28782, 33-60643,
33-60641, 33-42152, 333-13739, and 333-06949; and Form N-2 Registration Nos.
333-325 and 811-7499.


                                        /s/ ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

Los Angeles, California
February 5, 1999
# C_2016202EN.01013101.xml

| 7.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/131 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/131

---

Article 189

1.   To promote scientific and technical progress, industrial competitiveness and the implementation of its policies, the Union shall draw up a European space policy. To this end, it may promote joint initiatives, support research and technological development and coordinate the efforts needed for the exploration and exploitation of space.

2.   To contribute to attaining the objectives referred to in paragraph 1, the European Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, shall establish the necessary measures, which may take the form of a European space programme, excluding any harmonisation of the laws and regulations of the Member States.

3.   The Union shall establish any appropriate relations with the European Space Agency.

4.   This Article shall be without prejudice to the other provisions of this Title.

---
# C_2012326EN.01020101.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

---

PROTOCOL (No 16)

ON CERTAIN PROVISIONS RELATING TO DENMARK

THE HIGH CONTRACTING PARTIES,

TAKING INTO ACCOUNT that the Danish Constitution contains provisions which may imply a referendum in Denmark prior to Denmark renouncing its exemption,

GIVEN THAT, on 3 November 1993, the Danish Government notified the Council of its intention not to participate in the third stage of economic and monetary union,

HAVE AGREED UPON the following provisions, which shall be annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union:

| 1. | In view of the notice given to the Council by the Danish Government on 3 November 1993, Denmark shall have an exemption. The effect of the exemption shall be that all Articles and provisions of the Treaties and the Statute of the ESCB referring to a derogation shall be applicable to Denmark. |
| --- | --- |

1.

In view of the notice given to the Council by the Danish Government on 3 November 1993, Denmark shall have an exemption. The effect of the exemption shall be that all Articles and provisions of the Treaties and the Statute of the ESCB referring to a derogation shall be applicable to Denmark.

| 2. | As for the abrogation of the exemption, the procedure referred to in Article 140 shall only be initiated at the request of Denmark. |
| --- | --- |

2.

As for the abrogation of the exemption, the procedure referred to in Article 140 shall only be initiated at the request of Denmark.

| 3. | In the event of abrogation of the exemption status, the provisions of this Protocol shall cease to apply. |
| --- | --- |

3.

In the event of abrogation of the exemption status, the provisions of this Protocol shall cease to apply.

---
Exhibit 21

MasTec, Inc.

AFFILIATED ENTITIES

January 2011

NORTH AMERICA



|                                         |  |                                              
|---------------------------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------
|MasTec North America, Inc. (FL)          |  | (100% owned by MasTec, Inc.)                 
|                                         | 
|Globetec Construction, LLC (Florida)     |  | (100% owned by MasTec North America, Inc.)   
|                                         | 
|Direct Star TV LLC (NC)                  |  | (100% owned by MasTec North America, Inc.)   
|DS D4U, LLC (NC)                         |  | (100% owned by DirectStar TV LLC)            
|Funraisers PR, LLC (NC)                  |  | (100% owned by DirectStar TV LLC)            
|                                         | 
|Three Phase Line Construction, Inc. (NH) |  | (100% owned by Three Phase Acquisition Corp.)
|Three Phase Acquisition Corp. (NH)       |  | (100% owned by MasTec, Inc.)                 
|                                         | 
|Power Partners MasTec LLC (NC)           |  | (Sole member  MasTec North America, Inc.)   
|                                         | 
|Pumpco, Inc. (TX)                        |  | (100% owned by MasTec North America, Inc.)   
|                                         | 
|Nsoro MasTec, LLC (FL)                   |  | (Sole member  MasTec, Inc.)                 
|                                         | 
|Wanzek Construction, Inc. (ND)           |  | (100% owned by MasTec North America, Inc.)   
|                                         | 
|Precision Pipeline LLC (WI)              |  | (100% owned by Precision Acquisition, LLC)   
|Precision Acquisition, LLC (WI)          |  | (Sole member  MasTec, Inc.)
#### Carlos Garza DE LUNA, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 19037.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

Oct. 11, 1963.

*376James R. Gillespie, San Antonio, Tex., for appellant.

Russell B. Wine, K. Key Hoffman, Asst. U. S. Attys., San Antonio, Tex., for appellee.

Before BROWN, WISDOM and BELL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

In studying this case we were well aware of the procedural difficulties inherent in our decision. We could not overlook them: the concurring opinion brings out clearly the basic difficulties, including the possibility of a conspiracy of co-defendants to promote a mistrial by having one of them comment upon the failure of another co-defendant to testify. The co-defendant’s right to comment is not tangential but is an essential, if complicating, element in the problem. We weighed these considerations against an accused’s Fifth Amendment right not to testify and his right to be free of comments on the exercise of his constitutional right to silence. We concluded that in criminal trials a fair interpretation of the Constitution prohibits *ail*reference to an accused’s failure to testify.

The overriding consideration in all criminal cases is measured justice according to the Constitution. The inconvenience of a severance and the possibility of a mistrial if there should be a joint trial of co-defendants do not tip the scales for the Government when an accused’s right to silence is in the balance.

The rehearing is denied.

BELL, Circuit Judge

(dissenting).

I respectfully dissent. I would grant the petition for rehearing for the reasons stated in my special concurring original opinion.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

JAMES WALLACE

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 18

- 3302

[ January 2, 2020 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion f rom the Circuit Court for

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Bernard I. Bober

, Judge; L.T. Case No. 03

- 021355CF10A

.

James Wallace, Sneads, pro se.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jeanine

Germanowicz, Assistant Attorney Gen eral, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

L EVINE

, C.J., G ROSS and T AYLOR , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Vote 

threshold OakleyBairdBuie SwaffarRice Behar Chapman

NOSB Fall 2017 Proposals and Discussion Documents  

Subcommittee

Substance/Motion NL Section Doc type Motion 

by:

Seconded by: 

CACS Motion to amend language in the inspector 

qualifications proposal to read "proposal" instead of "discussion document". 

NA amend‐

ment

Scott Ashley 

Swaffar

 1/2 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

CACS Motion to accept the proposal on inspector 

qualifications

NA Proposal Harriet 

Behar

Ashley Swaffar

 2/3 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

CACS Motion to amend the language in the 'eliminating the 

incentive to convert native ecosystems to organic production' proposal as follows: remove from motion "...and semi‐natural" and "had been substantially altered over 50‐100 years ago, but" and "since".

NA Amend‐mentAshley 

Swaffar

Dan Seitz  1/2 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

CACS Motion to accept the proposal on eliminating the 

incentive to convert native ecosystems to organic production 

NA Proposal Harriet 

Behar

Emily Oakley

 2/3 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

LS Motion to amend the proposal on glycolic acid to 

correct the section number listed in the motion to 205.603(a)

205.603 Amend‐

ment

Ashley Swaffar

Emily Oakley

 1/2 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

LS Motion to classify glycolic acid ‐ petitioned, as 

synthetic

205.603 Proposal Ashley 

Swaffar

Harriet Behar

 2/3 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

LS Motion to list glycolic acid ‐ petitioned, at 205.603 205.603 Proposal Ashley 

Swaffar

Jesse Buie  2/3 NY Y Y YNY

LS Motion to accept the proposal on clarifying 

“emergency” for use of synthetic parasiticides in organic livestock production

NA Proposal Harriet 

Behar

Jesse Buie  2/3 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

HS Motion to classify sodium dodecylbenzene sulfonate 

(SDBS) as non agricultural,  synthetic

205.605(b) Proposal Scott Rice A‐dae 

Briones

 2/3 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

HS Motion to add sodium dodecylbenzene sulfonate 

(SDBS) at 205.605(b)

205.605(b) Proposal Joelle 

Mosso

Steve Ela  2/3 N N N N N N N 

HS Motion to reclassify magnesium chloride and move 

it's listing at 205.605(b) to 205.605(a)

205.605(b) Proposal Lisa de 

Lima

Steve Ela  2/3 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

CS Motion to classify Polyoxin D zinc salt ‐ petitioned, as 

synthetic

205.601 Proposal Jesse Buie Emily 

Oakley

 2/3 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

CS Motion to add Polyoxin D zinc salt ‐ petitioned at 

205.601(i)

205.601(i) Proposal Jesse Buie Sue Baird  2/3 N Y Y Y Y Y Y 

CS Motion to add Sulfur (as a molluscicide) ‐ petitioned, 

at 205.601(h)

205.601 Proposal Asa 

Bradman

Harriet Behar

 2/3 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

Printed 5/4/2018
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. (S) 1350



(ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)



In connection with the periodic report of Dynegy Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-Q/A for the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Bruce A. Williamson, President, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of the Company,
hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for the purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:



(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods indicated.



|                       |  |     |  |                                                                                 
|---------------------- |  | --- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: January 19, 2005 |  | By: |  | /s/    BRUCE A.
WILLIAMSON                                                      
|                       |  |     |  | Bruce A. Williamson President, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Dynegy Inc. and will be retained by Dynegy Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# C_2016202EN.01014301.xml

| 7.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/143 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/143

---

Article 213

When the situation in a third country requires urgent financial assistance from the Union, the Council shall adopt the necessary decisions on a proposal from the Commission.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1087 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1087

To require each agency, in providing notice of a rulemaking, to include 
   a link to a 100-word plain language summary of the proposed rule.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 7, 2019

Mr. Luetkemeyer (for himself, Mr. Collins of Georgia, Mr. Holding, Mr. 
  Huizenga, Mr. Riggleman, Mr. Arrington, Mr. Rouzer, Mr. Chabot, Mr. 
  Harris, and Mr. Ratcliffe) introduced the following bill; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To require each agency, in providing notice of a rulemaking, to include 
   a link to a 100-word plain language summary of the proposed rule.

    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 ``Providing Accountability Through 
Transparency Act of 2019''.

SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT TO POST A 100-WORD SUMMARY TO REGULATIONS.GOV.

    Section 553(b) of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (2) by striking ``; and'' and inserting 
        ``;'';
            (2) in paragraph (3), by striking the period at the end and 
        inserting ``; and''; and
            (3) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:
            ``(4) the internet address of a summary of not more than 
        100 words in length of the proposed rule, in plain language, 
        that shall be posted on the internet website under section 
        206(d) of the E-Government Act of 2002 (44 U.S.C. 3501 note) 
        (commonly known as regulations.gov);''.
                                 <all>
```
M14002 

Process Flow Diagram 

 

CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION REMOVED 

 
M14002 

Process Flow Diagram 

CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION REMOVED
#### William Alfred JORDAN, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 20104.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

Nov. 6, 1963.

S. Gunter Toney, Tallahassee, Fla., for appellant.

Clinton Ashmore, U. S. Atty., Richard W. Ervin, III, Stewart J. Carrouth, Asst. U. S. Attys., Tallahassee, Fla., for appellee.

Before RIVES and JONES, Circuit Judges, and DAWKINS, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant seeks relief from a sentence for violation of the internal revenue law imposing a tax on distilled spirits, 26 U.S.C.A. § 5601(a) (12), and makes two contentions on appeal. He first urges that it was error to admit testimony that when he was arrested, about eight months after the offense, he gave a fictitious name. The evidence was admissible both as justifying an inference of guilt by hiding under an assumed name and as proof of identity.

The second point is that the argument of the prosecutor in addressing the jury that “the case must go without any contradiction that the defendant” transported moonshine whiskey, was a prohibited comment on the appellant’s failure to testify. The law is otherwise. Garcia v. United States, 5th Cir. 1963, 315 F.2d 133.

There is no showing of error. The judgment and sentence of the district court are

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. (S) 1350



(ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)



In connection with the periodic report of Dynegy Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q
for the period ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Nick J. Caruso, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the
date hereof, solely for the purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:



|(1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods
indicated.
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |     |  |                                                                    
|-------------------- |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: August 9, 2005 |  | By: |  | /s/ NICK J. CARUSO                                                 
|                     |  |     |  | Nick J. Caruso Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer