alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

                                        SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY

                                             EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT PLAN

                                                 AMENDMENT 2001-1

Article V of the Executive Retirement Plan is amended to read as follows effective March 12, 2001:

                                                        V.
                                               TERMINATION BENEFITS

If the Participant terminates his or her employment with the Company prior to Retirement (either early or
normal), but with a deferred vested interest in the Plan, benefits will be payable under this Plan reduced by the
amounts specified in Section 3.03(a) determined as of the benefit commencement date adjusted to reflect any
distributions from the Participant's Profit Sharing Account under the Sponsor's Stock Savings Plus Plan, or
successor plan, that occurred since the employment termination date in a manner consistent with the Qualified
Plan.  If the vested individual was not a designated executive at the time employment was terminated, the Plan
benefit determined before the Section 3.03(a) reductions will be based on the Participant's Total Compensation
and service determined as of the last date of the Participant's status as a designated executive.
Notwithstanding any other provision in the Plan to the contrary, any benefits payable under this Plan due to
Termination of Employment will be paid as an annuity only, beginning at age 55 and calculated as of the
Participant's Normal Retirement Age under the Qualified Plan, reduced for early retirement by multiplying that
amount by a factor of 0.536.  A joint and survivor annuity will be the normal form of benefit.  The Participant
may elect another annuity option available under the Qualified Plan, subject to the same terms and conditions as
would apply to such an election under the Qualified Plan.

                                            Southern California Edison Company

                                                    [J. Michael Mendez]
                                     ----------------------------------
                                            J. Michael Mendez, Vice President
```
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-40447 Conference Calendar

KELJER KING, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus WAYNE SCOTT, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION; UNIDENTIFIED TROUT, Doctor, Coffield Unit; KEITH J. PRICE, Warden, Coffield Unit; WINDHAM SCHOOL DIRECTOR, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division; GEORGE BUSH, JR, Governor, State of Texas; NOEL J. WINNER, LT, Law Library, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:97-CV-44

- - - - - - - - - - August 15, 1997 Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Keljer King appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action as frivolous. The claim that a constitutional violation results when inmates in a higher classification status receive greater privileges was rejected by this court in Mikeska v.No. 97-40447 -2- Collins , 900 F.2d 833, 837 (5th Cir. 1990), opinion withdrawn and superseded on rehearing and reinstated in part by , 928 F.2d 126 (5th Cir. 1991). Appellant's race discrimination claim is general and conclusory and without factual support; it is therefore insufficient to sustain a § 1983 lawsuit. See Whittington v. Lynaugh , 842 F.2d 818, 821 (5th Cir. 1988). The district court did not err in dismissing the complaint as frivolous. This appeal is frivolous and is therefore dismissed. We caution King that any additional frivolous appeals filed by him will invite the imposition of sanctions. To avoid sanctions, King is further cautioned to review any pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that are frivolous. APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED. 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACO DIVISION

JENS H.S. NYGAARD,

Plaintiff,

v. 

FÉDÉRATION INTERNATIONALE DE 

L’AUTOMOBILE, FORMULA ONE 

MANAGEMENT LTD., FORMULA ONE WORLD 

CHAMPIONSHIP, MERCEDES-BENZ GRAND 

PRIX LTD., DAIMLER AG, LEWIS HAMILTON, 

RED BULL TECHNOLOGY LTD., RED BULL 

RACING LTD., FERRARI S.P.A., CHARLES 

LECLERC, and DALLARA AUTOMOBILI S.P.A.,

Defendants.

Case No. 6:20-cv-00234-ADA

ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS TO THE MOTION OF THE RED BULL DEFENDANTS 

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NO DAMAGES AND 

TO DISMISS THEM FROM THIS CASE

Deron R. Dacus 

State Bar No. 00790553 

THE DACUS FIRM, P.C.

821 ESE Loop 323, Suite 430 

Tyler, TX 75701 

Phone: (903) 705-1117 

Fax: (903) 581-2543 

Edgar H. Haug (pro hac vice) 

Mark A. Chapman (pro hac vice) 

Roman Khasidov (pro hac vice) 

HAUG PARTNERS LLP

745 Fifth Avenue, 10th Floor 

New York, New York 10151 

Phone: (212) 588-0800 

Fax: (212) 588-0500 

Counsel for Defendants Red Bull Racing 

February 2, 2022 Ltd. and Red Bull Technology Ltd. 

Case 6:20-cv-00234-ADA Document 267 Filed 02/02/22 Page 1 of 3
Dated: February 2, 2022 Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Deron R. Dacus

Deron R. Dacus

State Bar No. 00790553

THE DACUS FIRM, P.C.

821 ESE Loop 323, Suite 430

Tyler, TX 75701

Phone: (903) 705-1117

Fax: (903) 581-2543

ddacus@dacusfirm.com

Edgar H. Haug (pro hac vice)

Mark A. Chapman (pro hac vice)

Roman Khasidov (pro hac vice)

HAUG PARTNERS LLP

745 Fifth Avenue, 10th Floor

New York, New York 10151

Phone: (212) 588-0800

Fax: (212) 588-0500

Counsel for Defendants Red Bull Racing 

Ltd. and Red Bull Technology Ltd.

Case 6:20-cv-00234-ADA Document 267 Filed 02/02/22 Page 2 of 3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing document and exhibits 

5-8 and 14 have been served on all counsel of record via electronic mail and the Court’s ECF 

system on February 2, 2022. 

s/ Roman Khasidov _ 

Roman Khasidov 

Case 6:20-cv-00234-ADA Document 267 Filed 02/02/22 Page 3 of 3
#### Floyd LEACH, Appellant, v. Otto BYNUM et al., Appellees.

No. 3209.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Waco.

Sept. 23, 1954.

C. O. McMillan, Stephenville, for appellant.

H. W. Allen, Hamilton, for appellees.

McDONALD, Chief Justice.

This is a case wherein appellant sued appellees for title and possession to certain real estate as well as for certain injunctive relief. Trial was before the Court without a jury, which rendered judgment that appellant take nothing. From this judgment appellant appealed to this Court, and caused Transcript and Statement of Facts to be filed in this Court on 14 June 1954.

Appellant did not file any brief within the time prescribed by Rule 414, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, nor at any time thereafter. Further, appellant has not shown or attempted to show any good cause why it has not done so; nor has appellant requested further time for filing of brief. In view of the foregoing, it is our view that the appeal should be dismissed.

Accordingly this appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. See Rule 415, T.R. C.P.
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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-40788

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ENIL JOSUE CRUZ, also known as Josue Galindo-Cruz,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:08-CR-394-1

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and DAVIS and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Enil Josue Cruz pleaded guilty to one count of illegal reentry into the

United States after a previous deportation and was sentenced to serve 46

months in prison. Cruz appeals his sentence. Cruz argues first that the district

court reversibly erred by applying a 16-level crime of violence adjustment to his

base offense level pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) . He contends that his

Texas conviction for indecency with a child does not qualify as the enumerated

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

September 11, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-40788

2

crime of sexual abuse of a minor under the United States Sentencing Guidelines

because Texas defines the age of sexual consent as 17 years old and the

contemporary and common meaning of the word “minor” is 16 years of age. See

Tex. Penal Code § 21.11. This argument is, as he acknowledges, foreclosed by

precedent. See United States v. Ayala, 542 F.3d 494, 495 (5th Cir. 2008), cert.

denied, 129 S. Ct. 1388 (2009).

Cruz also argues that the district court committed significant procedural

error by imposing a sentence within the pertinent guidelines range without

giving specific reasons for rejecting his nonfrivolous arguments in favor of a

sentence below this range. We review this issue for plain error only due to his

failure to present it to the district court. See United States v. MondragonSantiago, 564 F.3d 357, 363-64 (5th Cir. 2009), petition for cert. filed (June 24,

2009) (No. 08-11099). To show plain error, Cruz must show a forfeited error that

is clear or obvious and that affects his substantial rights. Puckett v. United

States, 129 S. Ct. 1423, 1429 (2009). If he makes such a showing, this court has

the discretion to correct the error but will do so only if the error seriously affects

the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Id.

Even if the district court erred by not providing adequate reasons for

rejecting Cruz’s arguments, Cruz still has not shown that he should receive relief

on this claim. Cruz has failed to show that a more extensive explanation for his

sentence would have resulted in a different sentence. See Mondragon-Santiago,

564 F.3d at 362-64. Cruz’s argument that the district court’s error affected his

substantial rights because it hampers our ability to review the reasonableness

of his sentence is unavailing. See id. at 365.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 191 (Monday, October 2, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 58825]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-25207]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Advisory Panel for Economics, Decision and Management Sciences; 
Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces the 
following meetings of the Advisory Panel for Economics, Decision, Risk 
and Management Sciences and Innovation and Organization Change (#1759):

    Date & Time: November 10-11, 2000; 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Room: 920-970.
    Place: National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, 
Arlington, VA 22230.
    Contact Person: Dan Newlon, Program Director for Economics, 
National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 995, 
Arlington, VA 22230. Telephone: (703) 292-7276.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate Economics proposals as part of 
the selection process for awards.

    Date & Time: October 30-31, 2000; 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Room: 970.
    Place: National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, 
Arlington, VA 22230.
    Contact Person: Ann Bostrom, Program Director for Decision, Risk 
& Management Sciences (DRMS), National Science Foundation, 4201 
Wilson Boulevard, Suite 995, Arlington, VA 22230. Telephone: (703) 
292-7263.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate DRMS proposals as part of the 
selection process for awards.

    Type of Meetings: Closed.
    Purpose of Meetings: To provide advice and recommendations 
concerning support for research proposals submitted to the NSF for 
financial support.
    Reason for Closings: The proposals being reviewed include 
information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including 
technical information; financial data, such as salaries; and 
personal information concerning individuals associated with the 
proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and 
(6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.

    Dated: September 27, 2000.
Karen J. York,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 00-25207 Filed 9-29-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
# AGENCY:

 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

# ACTION:

 Proposed rule. 

# SUMMARY:

 EPA is proposing revisions to the California State Implementation Plan (SIP) which concern an emission offsets exemption for pollution control projects that are mandated by District, state, or federal regulation. 

                        The intended effect of this action is to regulate emissions from stationary sources of air pollution subject to District new source review (NSR) regulation in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). In the Final Rules section of this                         **Federal Register**                        , the EPA is approving the state's SIP submittal as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial revision and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for this approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no adverse comments are received, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting should do so at this time.                     

# DATES:

 Written comments must be received by March 6, 2000. 

# ADDRESSES:

 Comments should be addressed to: Roger Kohn, Permits Office (AIR-3), Air Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901. 

Copies of the rule revisions and EPA's evaluation report of each rule are available for public inspection at EPA's Region 9 office during normal business hours. Copies of the submitted rule revisions are also available for inspection at the following locations: 

California Air Resources Board, Stationary Source Division, Rule Evaluation Section, 2020 “L” Street, Sacramento, CA 95812. 

Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District, 24580 Silver Cloud Court, Monterey CA 93940. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

 Roger Kohn, Permits Office (AIR-3), Air Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901, Telephone: (415) 744-1238). 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                     This document concerns Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District Rule 207, Review of New or Modified Sources, submitted to EPA on October 29, 1999 by the California Air Resources Board. For further information, please see the information provided in the direct final action that is located in the rules section of this                     **Federal Register**                    .                 

Dated: January 21, 2000. 

Laura Yoshii, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 00-2471 Filed 2-3-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>  UT
<LEGEND>
SCE Financial Data Schedule - Exhibit 27
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>  1,000

<S>                                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                        3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                        DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                           JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                             MAR-31-2000
<BOOK-VALUE>                                             PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                                   7,371,224
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                                 2,840,704
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                                      1,467,824
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                                    6,015,045
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                                      0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                             17,694,797
<COMMON>                                                    2,168,054
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                                     359,438
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                                           625,514
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                              3,153,006
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                         255,700
<PREFERRED>                                                   128,755
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                                        2,342,324
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                            175,000
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                                   2,767,367
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                                674,154
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                                 447,841
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                                           0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                                         0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                                    0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                              7,750,650
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                              17,694,797
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                                   1,829,693
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                                          122,988
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                                  1,480,243
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                                  1,603,231
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                                       226,462
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                             16,674
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                                243,136
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                      124,177
<NET-INCOME>                                                  118,959
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                                     5,648
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                                 113,311
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                                       95,516
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                                      87,861
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                                        581,334
<EPS-BASIC>                                                         0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                       0



</TABLE>
#### FIELDS v. STATE.

No. 24261.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 13, 1949.

Jasper Fields, in pro. per.

Graves, Judge.

Originally this cause was dismissed because no notice of appeal was present in the record. Upon motion, it was properly shown that such notice was promptly given, whereupon the appeal was reinstated and •the cause affirmed.

The transcript contains the name of no attorney, and therefore a copy of the opinion -herein .was mailed direct to the appellant, who seems to have failed to call same to the attention of his attorney, such opinion being handed down on March 16, 1949. Upon the expiration of -the fifteen days allowed for the filing of a motion for a rehearing, mandate herein was issued on April 1, 1949. On April 3, 1939, the clerk of this court received a motion for a rehearing which was beyond the time allowed for such filing and comes too late.

Such motion merely reiterates matters which had our careful attention in the final opinion herein and which failed to evidence any error, and we see no reason for allowing a further discussion thereof.

The request to file this motion will be refused.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**AFFINITY GROUP HOLDING, INC.**

 

**STATEMENT PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

 

I,Michael A. Schneider, President and Chief Executive Officer of Affinity GroupHolding, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), hereby certify asfollows:

 

1.             This statement is providedpursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 in connection with the Company’s AnnualReport on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 (the “PeriodicReport”);

 

2.             The Periodic Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) and 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

3.             The information contained inthe Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company as of the dates and for theperiods indicated therein.

 

Date:      March 14, 2008

 
|   | /s/  Michael A. Schneider             |
|--------|---------------------------------------|
|   | Michael  A. Schneider                 |
|   | President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

----