alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Alma Glenn PRATT, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE UINTAH COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant and Appellant.

No. 14469.

Supreme Court of Utah.

Sept. 19, 1977.

Merlin R. Lybbert and George A. Hunt of Worsley, Snow & Christensen, Salt Lake City, for defendant and appellant.

Michael T. McCoy and A. M. Ferro, Salt Lake City, for plaintiff and respondent.

PER CURIAM:

Defendant’s petition for rehearing was granted in this case, originally decided on May 4, 1977, by a 3-2 decision which affirmed the District Court for Uintah County, in order to permit re-argument by counsel for the parties and further consideration by this Court.

The respective Justices of this Court are of the same convictions of mind as expressed in the prior opinion, Utah, 564 P.2d 294 (1977), which affirmed the decision of the District Court, and therefore the prior opinion is now ordered as the final action.
1

Brunner, Christine

From: Sargeant, Kathryn

Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2014 5:31 PM

To: Tier 3 Rule Team

Subject: FYI: Detailed responses to Big Oil's Big Malarkey about Tier 3 low-sulfur gasoline

Attachments: Refinery Lead Time Assessment.docx; The Need For Low Sulfur Fuel.docx

Importance: High

FYI only 

From: Frank O'Donnell [mailto:cleanairfrank@cleanairwatch.org] 

Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2014 9:14 AM 

To: cleanairfrank@cleanairwatch.org

Subject: Detailed responses to Big Oil's Big Malarkey about Tier 3 low-sulfur gasoline 

Importance: High 

Dear friends, 

We have heard a lot of malarkey in recent months from the oil industry as it desperately tries to delay 

EPA’s upcoming “Tier 3” clean-car, clean-gasoline standards. These standards are badly needed to 

reduce smog and soot. 

Among Big Oil’s biggest arguments: there isn’t enough time to make needed refinery changes by the 

start of 2017; and lower-sulfur gasoline really isn’t needed. 

You don’t need to take just my word that the industry is crying wolf, as it has so often in the past: 

http://www.cleanairwatch.org/2013/04/clean-air-watch-to-epa-oil-indistry-has.html

I thought you might find the attached worth your time. These are detailed – and new -- analyses of 

these issues by Michael P. Walsh, a world-renowned auto emissions expert 

http://www.walshcarlines.com/ who, among many other things, once ran the EPA motor vehicle 

emission control program. 

These are extremely detailed and dispassionate analyses. To sum them up: 

• Regarding time needed to clean up the fuel: Even without the flexibilities provided by the 

Tier 3 Rule, most refineries should have no difficulty complying with the sulfur standard by 

January 1, 2017 or earlier. The various flexibilities that the Tier 3 rule provides to refiners - the 

ABT (averaging, banking and trading) program, the small refiner delay provisions and the 

hardship provisions - assures for those limited instances where needed that there is additional 

time for complying. 

• And as for the need to clean up the fuel: Sulfur in gasoline poisons catalysts, increases 

vehicle emissions, limits technology choices and impairs fuel efficiency. Future vehicle fleets 

will need gasoline with much lower sulfur levels than available today if they are to meet the 

proposed Tier 3 vehicle emission standards, and Tier 3 will be infeasible without its proposed 

10 ppm refinery annual average sulfur limit. 
2

I hope you will keep these in mind as you evaluate the ongoing attempts by the oil industry to 

bamboozle both the White House and the media!
OW-15

ELECTRONIC RECORD

COA# 04-13-00346-CR

JASSEN BARNES V. THE

STYLE: state of texas

OFFENSE: MURDER

COUNTY: BEXAR

COA DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED TRIAL COURT: 186TM DISTRICT COURT

DATE: 12/10/14 Publish: NO TC CASE #: 2011CR9420

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

ELECTRONIC RECORD

JASSEN BARNES V. THE

STYLE: STATE OF TEXAS CCA#: o*M»-/S

APPELL/jA/T^ Petition CCA Disposition:

FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS:

DATE: Q3/i?/^c>Lr

JUDGE: ^ ZL/^*XDATE:

JUDGE:

SIGNED:.

PUBLISH:

REHEARING IN CCA IS:

JUDGE:

PC:_

DNP:

MOTION FOR
23469

#### State v. Galbraith

Vacated and Remanded
##### 



Exhibit 32.6
  SECTION 1350
    CERTIFICATION OF
    CENTRAL ILLINOIS LIGHT COMPANY
    (required by Section 906 of the
    Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)
  Form 10-K Form 10-K),
  (1)
    The
    Form 10-K
    fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
    15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m
    or 78o(d)); and(2)
    The information contained in the
    Form 10-K
    fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
    condition and results of operations of the Registrant.  Date:
    February 29, 2008
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-14-00366-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF A.M., C.M., 

AND A.R., CHILDREN

----------

FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF PARKER COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NO. CIV-12-0817

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

----------

Appellant Mother appeals the trial court’s final order terminating her 

parental rights to her three children, A.M., C.M., and A.R.2 See Tex. Fam. Code 

Ann. § 161.001(1)(D), (E), (O), (2) (West 2014). Mother’s court-appointed 

appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and a brief in support 

of that motion. In the motion, counsel avers that she has conducted a 

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

2We use aliases to refer to the parties to this appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 

9.8(b)(2).
2

professional evaluation of the record and, after a thorough review of the 

applicable law, has reached the conclusion that there are no arguable grounds to 

be advanced to support an appeal of this cause and that the appeal is frivolous. 

Neither Mother nor the Department of Family and Protective Services filed a 

response.

Counsel’s brief and motion meet the requirements of Anders v. California

by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there 

are no reversible grounds on appeal and referencing any grounds that might 

arguably support the appeal. 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967); 

see In re K.M., 98 S.W.3d 774, 776‒77 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2003, no pet.) 

(holding that Anders procedures apply in parental-termination cases).

In our duties as the reviewing court, we must conduct an independent 

evaluation of the record to determine whether counsel is correct in determining 

that the appeal is frivolous. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 1991); In re K.E.S., No. 02-11-00420-CV, 2012 WL 4121127, at *8 

(Tex. App.—Fort Worth Sept. 20, 2012, pet. denied) (mem. op. on reh’g). Only 

then may we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 

75, 82‒83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988).

We have carefully reviewed the appellate record and appellate counsel’s 

brief. We agree with counsel that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without 

merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. See 

Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); see also In re 
3

A.B., 437 S.W.3d 498, 500 (Tex. 2014) (holding that an appellate court that 

affirms a judgment terminating parental rights need not detail the evidence when 

performing a factual sufficiency review). Therefore, we grant appellate counsel’s 

motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s final order terminating Mother’s 

parental rights to A.M., C.M., and A.R.

/s/ Bill Meier

BILL MEIER

JUSTICE 

PANEL: GARDNER, WALKER, and MEIER, JJ.

DELIVERED: April 16, 2015
Exhibit 10.2

LOGO

Lee P. Brennan

Vice
President

Mid-Corporate Banking Credit

(212) 622-3623

November 28, 2006

CDI Corp.

1717 Arch Street, 35th Floor

Philadelphia, PA 19103

Attention: Mark Kerschner

Dear Mark,

This letter supersedes and replaces our advice of line of credit letter dated August 29, 2006.

We are pleased to advise you that based upon your annual financial statements for the fiscal year 2005, and your filings of interim information contained in your 10-Q dated as of September 30, 2006 JPMorgan Chase
Bank (the Bank) has approved your request for a line of credit in the aggregate amount of $35,000,000.00. Our officers may, at their discretion, make short term loans to CDI Corporation, on such terms as are mutually agreed upon between
us from time to time.

Borrowings under this line are intended to be used to meet your normal short term capital needs and will bear interest at such a
rate as shall be mutually agreed upon by each of us from time to time.

As this line is not a commitment, credit availability is, in addition, subject to
your execution and delivery of such documentation as the Bank deems appropriate and the receipt and continuing satisfaction with current financial information (including without limitation audited annual and unaudited quarterly financial statements,
promptly prepared and received), which information will be furnished to the Bank as it may from time to time reasonably request, and continuing satisfaction with your financial condition, business affairs and prospects. This line expires on
February 28, 2007.

We are pleased to be of service and trust you will call upon us to assist in any of your banking requirements.



|                  
|------------------
|Very truly yours, 
|                  
|/s/ Lee P. Brennan

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.Commercial BankingMid-Corporate Banking CreditNY1-L280, 277 Park Avenue, 14th Floor, New York, NY 10172



---

November 27, 2006

ENDORSEMENT NO. 5

The Promissory Note dated November 16, 2004 (the Note) of
CDI CORP.(the Borrower) as amended by Endorsement 1, Endorsement 2, Endorsement 3 and Endorsement 4 to which this Endorsement No. 5 is attached and evidencing a $35,000,000 uncommitted line of credit facility (Line of
Credit) extended by JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,formerly JPMorganChase Bank (the Bank) to the Borrower is hereby amended by:



| | 1. | deleting November 30, 2006 in the first paragraph of the Note and substituting therefore February 28, 2007 as the amended Maturity Date of the Note and
expiration date for the Line of Credit.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



CDI CORP.By:

/s/ Mark A. KerschnerTitle:

CFOJPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.By:

/s/ Lee P. BrennanVice President
| 1.   | The                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)                of                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2.   | The                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and the results of operations of                the                Company. |
|----------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:                 September 12, 2007 |  |                                                                                                                    |
|-----------------------------------------------|--|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                          |  |                                                                                                                    |
|                                          |  | FRANKLIN                LAKE RESOURCES INC.                                                                        |
|                                          |  | (Registrant)                                                                                                       |   |
|                                          |  |                                                                                                                    |
|                                          |  | By                /s/ Father                Gregory                Ofiesh       |
|                                          |  |    Father                Gregory Ofiesh                                                             |
|                                          |  |    President &                CEO and Acting Chief Financial                Officer        |

----
106 P.3d 374

SUPREME COURT OF HAWAI'I

#### Doe v. Doe

25760

12/23/2004

Affirmed & remanded
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
    Homecommentreply584Add new comment
Add new comment
        
                  Dorothy Blum (not verified)PermalinkDecember 27, 2022 - 9:10amInteresting article and beautiful pictures!
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
#### State v. Heggland

27755

03/31/2008

Granted

116 Hawai'i 376, 173 P.3d 523
28234

#### State v. Kalili

"Affirmed
146 P.3d 631

INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF HAWAI''I

November 16, 2006

27592

#### State v. Taylor

Affirmed
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
    Homecommentreply1131Add new comment
Add new comment
        
                  Michael J Lill... (not verified)PermalinkJune 19, 2020 - 10:51amReally a great program you have for OUR houses,  wish this could happen in our state Capital, also city.  This sure help to keep Washington D.C. young.
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
#### State v. Ishikawa

25020

08/25/2003

Affirmed
Dismiss and Opinion Filed April 16, 2015.

S

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-15-00474-CR

CHRISTOPHER RANDY PEREZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 296th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 296-80748-2014

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Wright, Justice Brown, and Justice Stoddart

Opinion by Justice Stoddart

Christopher Randy Perez was convicted of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and 

sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment. Sentence was imposed in open court on August 21, 2014. 

In his notice of appeal, appellant recognizes that he pleaded guilty pursuant to plea agreement, 

but believes he should be able to appeal because his conviction was based on ineffective 

assistance of counsel.1

 We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Appellant did not timely file a motion for new trial; therefore, his notice of appeal was 

due by Monday, September 22, 2014. See TEX. R. APP. P. 4.1(a), 26.2(a)(a). Appellant’s April 

14, 2015 notice of appeal is untimely as to his August 21, 2014 sentencing date. Nothing in the 

notice of appeal indicates appellant was granted an out-of-time appeal by the Texas Court of 

 1 This is appellant’s second appeal from the same conviction. The first appeal was dismissed for want of jurisdiction on February 12, 2015. 

Perez v. State, No. 05-15-00149-CR (Tex App.-––Dallas Feb. 12, 2015, no pet.).
–2–

Criminal Appeals, and this Court has no authority to grant appellant an out-of-time appeal. See 

Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (per curiam); Olivo v. State, 918 

S.W.2d 519, 523 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996).

We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Do Not Publish

TEX. R. APP. P. 47

150474F.U05

/ Craig Stoddart/

CRAIG STODDART

JUSTICE
–3–

Court of Appeals

S

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

CHRISTOPHER RANDY PEREZ, 

Appellant

No. 05-15-00474-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 296th Judicial District 

Court, Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 296-80748-2014.

Opinion delivered by Justice Stoddart, Chief 

Justice Wright and Justice Brown 

participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal for want of 

jurisdiction.

Judgment entered this 16th day of April, 2015.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 1 , 2019

No. 04

- 18

- 00861

- CR & 04

- 18

- 00862

- CR

Juan ORTIZ, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 226th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017CR7171

, 2018CR0457 Honorable Sid L. Harle, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

By order dated May 17, 2019, we abated th e s e appeal s to the trial court for an abandonment hearing. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.8(b)(2). We ordered the trial court to make the necessary findings required by our order and cause a supplemental clerk’s record and supplemental reporter’s record to be filed in this court no later than June 17, 2019. By order dated June 25, 2019, this court granted the trial court’s request to extend the deadline to August 1, 2019.

On July 31, 2019, the supplemental records were filed. The trial court found appellant desires to prosecute his appeals and appointed counsel had not abandoned the appeals. It is therefore ORDERED that the appeals are REINSTATED on the docket of this co urt. Appellant’s brief must be filed no later than August 19, 2019.

_________________________________ Beth Watkins , Justice

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

court on this 1st day of August, 2019

.___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
#### Ching v. Ching

23952

06/16/2003

Affirmed
July 7, 2005

25613

#### Norwest Mortg., Inc. v. Vincent

Affirmed
#### Minakami v. Minakami

24121

02/07/2003

Affirmed in part, vacated in part and remanded
EXHIBIT 27.1
                                                                    ------------



                    REPORT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

To Chattem, Inc.

We have audited in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the
United States, the consolidated financial statements included in Chattem, Inc.
and subsidiaries' annual report to shareholders incorporated by reference in
this Form 10-K, and have issued our report thereon dated January 23, 2002. Our
audit was made for the purpose of forming an opinion on those statements taken
as a whole. Schedule II is the responsibility of the Company's management and is
presented for purposes of complying with the Securities and Exchange
Commission's rules and is not part of the basic financial statements. This
schedule has been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of
the basic financial statements and, in our opinion, fairly states in all
material respects the financial data required to be set forth therein in
relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole.



ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP


Chattanooga, Tennessee
January 23, 2002