alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Navigate to Homepage
Search
Main navigation
  

        
              Explore the Capitol Campus
                          Art
                            Buildings & Grounds
                            Capitol Hill Facts
                            Visitor Resources
                            Our Blog
                            What We Do
                          Areas of Expertise
                            Programs & Ceremonies
                            Projects
                            Publications
                            Strategic Objectives
                            About Us
                          Who We Are
                            History of the AOC
                            News & Notices
                            Organizational Structure
                            Partnerships & Recognition
                            Work With UsSearch Breadcrumb
    Homecommentreply387Add new comment
Add new comment
        
                  Mark Pohlad (not verified)PermalinkMarch 23, 2022 - 9:06pmThat's a great painting; good point!  Alexander Hay Ritchie's print after it--for which Lincoln was the first subscriber, though he didn't live long enough to receive his print--is clearer and more easily read.
By the way, the artist's full name is Francis Bicknell Carpenter.  He wrote a book about his experience of living in the White House and coming into contact with Lincoln.  It's entitled "Six Months at the White House" (1866).
ReplyYour name
Email Address
        The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
Comment
About text formats
Plain text
  
  
      
          No HTML tags allowed.
                      Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
                      Web page addresses and email addresses turn into links automatically. Serve. Preserve. Inspire.

              Contact Us
                            Accountability
                            Hill Staff Resources
                            AOC Staff Resources
Utility
  

        
              Privacy Policy
                            Image Terms of Use
                            Inspector General
                            U.S. Botanic Garden
                            U.S. Capitol Visitor CenterFacebook
	Twitter
	Flickr
	YouTube
	Instagram
	Subscribe
Source Categories

Emissions 

(tons/yr) %

Cumulative 

%

Agricultural Chemcials and Pesticides 2.50E-01 13.10 13.10

Industrial Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing 1.57E+00 82.00 95.10

Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing (MON) 4.52E-02 2.37 97.47

Secondary Lead Smelting 4.84E-02 2.53 100.00

Total Emissions 1.91 100.00

1,3-Dichloropropene
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 15

Goody's Family Clothing, Inc.
Knoxville, Tennessee

We have made a review, in accordance with standards established by the American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants, of the unaudited interim consolidated
financial information of Goody's Family Clothing, Inc. and subsidiaries for the
periods ended October 28, 2000 and October 30, 1999 as indicated in our report
dated November 13, 2000; because we did not perform an audit, we expressed no
opinion on that information.

We are aware that our report referred to above, which is included in your
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended October 28, 2000, is
incorporated by reference in Registration Statements Nos. 333-32357, 33-51210,
33-68520, 333-00052 and 333-09595 on Form S-8.

We also are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) under
the Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of the Registration
Statement prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared or
certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
Atlanta, Georgia
November 21, 2000
#### BEVERLY HAYES GENGARELLY *v.*WALTER J. GENGARELLY

(AC 19045)

Lavery, C. J., and Foti and Daly, Js.

Argued June 6

officially released June 27, 2000

Per Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed.
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 42039

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

DENNIS JOHN HALSETH,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2015 Unpublished Opinion No. 461

Filed: April 15, 2015

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED 

OPINION AND SHALL NOT 

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho, 

Kootenai County. Hon. Benjamin R. Simpson, District Judge. 

Judgment of conviction and concurrent unified sentences of twenty years, with a 

minimum period of confinement of five years, for burglary, grand theft, and 

eluding a peace officer, affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Justin M. Curtis, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney 

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before MELANSON, Chief Judge; LANSING, Judge;

and GRATTON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Dennis John Halseth was found guilty of burglary (Idaho Code § 18-1401), grand theft

(I.C. § 18-2403(1)), and eluding a peace officer (I.C. § 49-1404(2)). The district court sentenced 

Halseth to concurrent unified terms of twenty years, with a minimum period of confinement of 

five years. Halseth appeals asserting that the district court abused its discretion by imposing 

excessive sentences.

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the 

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and 

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114, 117-18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014-
2

15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez, 106 Idaho 447, 449-51, 680 P.2d 869, 871-73 (Ct. App. 

1984); State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing 

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record 

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Halseth’s judgment of conviction and sentences are affirmed.
# EUR-Lex - 22004D0032 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 22004D0032

**Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 32/2004 of 19 March 2004 amending Annex XXI (Statistics) to the EEA Agreement **

*
Official Journal L 127 , 29/04/2004 P. 0143 - 0143 *

Decision of the EEA Joint Committee

No 32/2004

of 19 March 2004

amending Annex XXI (Statistics) to the EEA Agreement

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, as amended by the Protocol adjusting the Agreement on the European Economic Area, hereinafter referred to as "the Agreement", and in particular Article 98 thereof,

Whereas:

(1) Annex XXI to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 14/2004 of 6 February 2004(1).

(2) Regulation (EC) No 1177/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 June 2003 concerning Community statistics on income and living conditions (EU-SILC)(2) is to be incorporated into the Agreement.

(3) This Decision is not to apply to Liechtenstein,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The following point shall be inserted after point 18h (Commission Regulation (EC) No 1216/2003) of Annex XXI to the Agreement:

"18i. 32003 R 1177: Regulation (EC) No 1177/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 June 2003 concerning Community statistics on income and living conditions (EU-SILC) (OJ L 165, 3.7.2003, p. 1).

The provisions of the Regulation shall, for the purposes of the present Agreement, be read with the following adaptation:

This Regulation shall not apply to Liechtenstein."

Article 2

The texts of Regulation (EC) No 1177/2003 in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, to be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be authentic.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on 20 March 2004, provided that all the notifications pursuant to Article 103(1) of the Agreement have been made to the EEA Joint Committee(3).

Article 4

This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 19 March 2004.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

P. Westerlund

(1) OJ L 116, 22.4.2004, p. 66.

(2) OJ L 165, 3.7.2003, p. 1.

(3) Constitutional requirements indicated.
EXHIBIT (24) 7
                                POWER OF ATTORNEY


The  undersigned,  as  Controller  of  Central  Power  and  Light  Company  (the
"Company"),  hereby makes, constitutes and appoints J. Gonzalo Sandoval his true
and lawful  attorney-in-fact and agent, with full power and authority to execute
in the name and on behalf of the  undersigned,  in any and all  capacities,  the
Company's  Annual  Report  on Form  10-K  for  1998  and any and all  amendments
thereto, to be filed under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,  and
any other documents and instruments  incidental  thereto,  and to file the same,
with all exhibits  thereto and all documents in connection  therewith,  with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission,  hereby granting to such  attorney-in-fact,
and agent,  full power and  authority  of  substitution  and  revocation  in the
premises  and full power and  authority to do and perform each and every act and
thing requisite and necessary to be done in and about the premises, as fully for
all intents  and  purposes  as the  undersigned  might or could do in person and
hereby ratifying and confirming all that such attorney-in-fact and agent, may do
or cause to be done by virtue of this Power of Attorney.

IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  I have hereunto  executed this Power of Attorney as of the
24th day of February, 1999.


                                            /s/ R. Russell Davis
                                                R. Russell Davis
                                                Controller


Subscribed and sworn to before me this 24th day of February, 1999, by R. Russell
Davis.



                                            /s/ Kit Hill
                                                Notary Public

My Commission Expires:    6-14-2001
Exhibit 10(c)28




March 31, 2004





Mr. William Cavanaugh III
1109 Tazwell Place
Raleigh, NC  27612

Dear Bill:

This letter will confirm the  discussions we have recently had  concerning  your
upcoming retirement as Chief Executive Officer on March 1, 2004, and as Chairman
of the Board at the May 12 Annual Meeting of Shareholders.  As agreed,  you will
be  available  to provide  various  services to the Company  after May 12, 2004.
These  services  will be as  requested  by,  and  performed  under  the  general
direction of, Progress  Energy's Chief Executive  Officer,  as agreed to by you.
The  compensation  for such services will be as approved by the Chief  Executive
Officer.

The  Company  will  continue  to provide  you with the  following  services  and
benefits:  a home alarm and security  service,  a company network  telephone and
facsimile  equipment at your  residences,  a personal  computer,  and a cellular
telephone.  The Company will provide you with financial planning for three years
following your retirement and will provide financial planning for Mrs. Cavanaugh
for one year after your death (if you  predecease  her).  The Company  will also
continue to provide appropriate office and secretarial  support.  These services
and appropriate office  accommodations will be supplied until you attain the age
of 75.  After such time,  if  services  or  accommodations  of any kind might be
appropriate,  the matter will be determined at that time by the Chief  Executive
Officer.

In addition,  the Company will  reimburse  you for your  reasonable  expenses in
connection  with your  upcoming  service  for one term as  Chairman of the World
Association  of  Nuclear  Operations  (WANO).  We  understand  that your term as
Chairman  of WANO will  commence  this year and will be a  two-year  commitment.
Reasonable  expenses will include the cost of a security  detail in those places
where  security would be  appropriate.  The need for security will be determined
after  consultation  with  Progress  Energy  Corporate  Security  and the  Chief
Executive Officer or his designee. You should review your travel and other plans
and expenditures concerning WANO in advance with the Chief Executive Officer.

I look forward to our continued association.

Sincerely,

/s/ Robert B. McGehee

Attachment

Agreed: /s/ William Cavanaugh III      Approved: /s/ Charles W. Coker
        -------------------------                --------------------
        William Cavanaugh III                    Charles W. Coker
#### Jean R. Springer, as Executrix of Simon H. Springer, Deceased, Respondent, *v.*National Casualty Company, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

February 11, 1959.

*Bowling Bowling (Otho S. Bowling*of counsel), for appellant.

*M. Bernard Brownstein*and *Sidney Grossman*for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

The provisions of.the policy were unambiguous and the interpretation of the applicable provisions was not for the jury. The evidence established one continuing sickness for a 24-month period for which proof thereof was submitted by the insured to defendant. No claim was made that such sickness ceased to be disabling during that period. Defend*208ant’s payment for 24 months upon that continuing illness and claim discharged its obligation under the policy regardless of subsequent intervening other diseases for which no proper proof of claim was made and during which period no claim was made by the insured that he had recovered from the original illness or that it had diminished to the extent that it no longer disabled him.

The judgment should be reversed, with $30 costs, and judgment directed for defendant, with costs.

Concur — Heoht, J. P., Aurelio and Tilzer, JJ.

Judgment reversed, etc.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF 

AFRICAN-AMERICAN OWNED MEDIA, 

a California limited liability company; 

ENTERTAINMENT STUDIOS 

NETWORKS, INC., a California 

corporation, 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

 v. 

COMCAST CORPORATION, a 

Pennsylvania corporation, 

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16-56479 

D.C. No. 

2:15-cv-01239-TJH-MAN 

ORDER*

On Remand from the United States Supreme Court

Before: SCHROEDER, M. SMITH, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

On March 23, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court granted Appellant’s petition for 

certiorari, vacated our memorandum disposition filed November 19, 2018, and 

remanded for further consideration in light of Comcast Corp. v. National Assn. of 

African American-Owned Media, 589 U. S. ___ (2020). We hereby VACATE the 

district court’s decision and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with 

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

FILED

MAY 7 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

Comcast.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
<PAGE>

                                                                Exhibit 4(l)

AMENDMENT TO BYLAWS
ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS ON NOVEMBER 18, 1992
------------------------------------------------------


     RESOLVED, that Article III, Section 1 of the bylaws of the Corporation
     be, and hereby is, amended to read in its entirety:

          Section 1. The number of directors which shall constitute the
          whole board shall be four (4). The directors shall be elected at
          the annual meeting of the stockholders, except as provided in
          Section 2 of this Article, and each director elected shall hold
          office until such director's successor is elected and qualified.
          Directors need not be stockholders.
Navigate to Homepage
Search
Main navigation
  

        
              Explore the Capitol Campus
                          Art
                            Buildings & Grounds
                            Capitol Hill Facts
                            Visitor Resources
                            Our Blog
                            What We Do
                          Areas of Expertise
                            Programs & Ceremonies
                            Projects
                            Publications
                            Strategic Objectives
                            About Us
                          Who We Are
                            History of the AOC
                            News & Notices
                            Organizational Structure
                            Partnerships & Recognition
                            Work With UsSearch Breadcrumb
    Homecommentreply563Add new comment
Add new comment
        
                  Stephen J. Marmon (not verified)PermalinkMay 10, 2023 - 12:53pmAw. Thank you for doing this.
ReplyYour name
Email Address
        The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
Comment
About text formats
Plain text
  
  
      
          No HTML tags allowed.
                      Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
                      Web page addresses and email addresses turn into links automatically. Serve. Preserve. Inspire.

              Contact Us
                            Accountability
                            Hill Staff Resources
                            AOC Staff Resources
Utility
  

        
              Privacy Policy
                            Image Terms of Use
                            Inspector General
                            U.S. Botanic Garden
                            U.S. Capitol Visitor CenterFacebook
	Twitter
	Flickr
	YouTube
	Instagram
	Subscribe
P.1 

OAR Box 1818 

Prepped by OIlie Stewart 

Document Number: 

7) ll-C-4 

Docket Number: 

A-87-11 

Printed 11/6/20083:12:41 PM 

..__ 

Sheet 7 of 79 
P.2 

,./ H '.•-•:-•• . . . >; • i-3"7 V 

P A ^ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

I -\V|^L..« ANN ARBOR. MICHIGAN 48105 \~y 

OFFICE OF 

AIR AND RADIATION 

JAH:.T!98T 

Mr. Robert H. Elliott -. 

28322 Hoover Road ' 

Warren, Michigan .48093 

Dear Mr. Elliott: 

In response to your November 15, 1986 letter to Lee Thomas 

and December 11, 1986 meeting with Richard Wilcox, I am 

replying to your concerns and ideas regarding refueling vapor 

controls. I appreciate your interest in this area and the 

alternative refueling control system you offered. 

As you know, EPA is evaluating both Stage II and onboard 

refueling controls as a means to capture refueling vapors. If 

determined feasible and cost effective, EPA may decide to 

propose the addition of onboard control systems to motor 

vehicles. Any onboard proposal would be a performance standard 

for motor vehicles and not a design standard which requires a 

particular onboard system design. As such, EPA would not be 

proposing any specific control technique for the vehicle, but 

instead would require that any technique used be capable of 

controlling refueling emissions over the vehicle's useful life. 

EPA is always interested in emission control concepts, but 

we normally do not conduct laboratory evaluations of such 

devices. instead, I recommend that you present your onboard 

system design to the appropriate moto'r vehicle manufacturers. 

They are in a better position to evaluate various onboard 

control techniques and to judge whether or not they would be 

capable of meeting a potential refueling emission standard, 

while also meeting DOT vehicle safety standards, other EPA 

emission standards, and to evaluate if such techniques are 

consistent with good engineering practices. 

Again, I appreciate your concerns regarding onboard 

control systems. 

Sincerely yours, 

".•.. // 7 

..A.'ii- -"

 v ^ 7 55 * ' 

Charles L. Gray, Jr*. 

Director 

Emission Control Technology Division
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 17, 2015

No. 04-15-00222-CV

IN THE ESTATE OF CARLOS AGUILAR, DECEASED,

From the County Court at Law No 2, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012-PB4-000048-L2

Honorable Jesus Garza, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

On March 13, 2015, appellants Vanessa Arce and Eudelia Aguilar filed a notice of appeal 

from a probate court order dated February 13, 2015. In response, appellee Clarissa Aguilar filed 

a motion to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction, arguing the order from which appellants 

are attempting to appeal is not a final, appealable order. Rather, it is merely a discovery order 

that is not appealable. 

Generally, appeals may be taken only from final judgments. De Ayala v. Mackie, 193

S.W.3d 575, 578 (Tex. 2006) (citing Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 

2001)). A judgment or order is final for purposes of appeal if it actually disposes of all pending 

parties and claims before the court. Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 195. In the probate context,

however, there may be multiple judgments on discrete issues that are final for purposes on 

appeal. De Ayala, 193 S.W.3d at 578. However, not every interlocutory order in a probate case 

is appealable. Id. In De Ayala the supreme court held that if there is no express statute declaring 

the phase of the probate proceeding to be final and appealable, a probate court order is final and 

appealable only if it disposes of all parties or issues in a particular phase of the proceedings. Id.

at 579. 

In this appeal, the order appellants seek to appeal concerns discovery issues. We have 

found no statute declaring such an order appealable under the Probate Code, and it does not 

appear that the order disposes of all parties or issues in a particular phase of the proceedings. See 

id. Moreover, we cannot find any other statutory authority that permits a party to appeal from an 

interlocutory discovery order. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014 (West Supp. 

2014). 

We therefore ORDER appellants to file in this court, on or before May 18, 2015, a 

written response showing cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. 

If appellants fail to satisfactorily respond within the time provided, the appeal will be dismissed. 
See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a), (c). All deadlines in this matter are suspended until further order of 

the court. 

We order the clerk of this court to serve a copy of this order on the trial court, Ms. 

Margie R. Ibarra, the Webb County Clerk, the court reporter, and all counsel. 

_________________________________

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

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

court on this 17th day of April, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
JUDGMENT

Court of Appeals 

 

First District of Texas 

NO. 01-15-00288-CR

EX PARTE KEITH WILSON GOODSON, Appellant

Appeal from the 184th District Court of Harris County (Tr. Ct. No. 1457737)

The cause heard today by the Court is an appeal from the judgment signed by the 

court below on February 27, 2015. After inspecting the record of the court below, it is the 

opinion of this Court that there is no reversible error in the judgment. It is therefore 

CONSIDERED, ADJUDGED, and ORDERED that the judgment of the court below be 

affirmed.

The Court orders that this decision be certified below for observance.

Judgment rendered April 21, 2015.

Judgment rendered by panel consisting of Justices Keyes, Bland, and Massengale.y
July 8, 1998

20425

#### State v. Concordia

Affirmed