alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

CRYSTAL GAITAN,

 Plaintiff,

vs.

C R BARD INCORPORATED, BARD 

PERIPHERAL VASCULAR 

INCORPORATED,

 Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

SA-20-CV-00418-FB

ORDER

Before the Court is the above-styled cause of action, which was referred to the

undersigned for all pretrial proceedings pursuant to Western District of Texas Local Rule CV-72

and Appendix C [#13]. On May 12, 2021, the Court received the parties’ Notice of Settlement

and Joint Motion to Stay Case [#28], informing the Court that they have reached an agreement in

principle that will resolve Plaintiff’s claims in this lawsuit. The filing also asks the Court to

continue all deadlines and hearings and to stay the case for 90 days as the parties negotiate the

settlement documents and finalize the settlement. The Court will grant the motion.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties’ Joint Motion to Stay Case [#28] is

GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all proceedings, including discovery and all pretrial

deadlines, are STAYED for 90 days pending Plaintiff’s dismissal of this suit.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any hearings or settings are hereby VACATED.

IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that if a dismissal has not been filed at the end of 90 days, 

the parties shall file a joint status report regarding the status of settlement.

Case 5:20-cv-00418-FB-ESC Document 29 Filed 05/13/21 Page 1 of 2
2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

SIGNED this 13th day of May, 2021.

ELIZABETH S. ("BETSY") CHESTNEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:20-cv-00418-FB-ESC Document 29 Filed 05/13/21 Page 2 of 2
Record of Di s cussion Docke t No. FAA- Dir ectorate Identifier: -AD With whom outside the FAA has this AD action been discussed (i.e., Design Approval Holder , manufacturer, ATA, NBAA, RAA, AOPA, ALPA, GAMA, etc)?

ORGANlZATlON PERSON CONT ACTED D ATE TOPICS DIS CUSSED 

### A4A Bob Ireland 4/1 1/ 14 No response. 

### Boeing Barry Bannister 1/11/14 No response.

Other/ Additional I nformation:
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 194 (Thursday, October 5, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 59407]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-25614]



[[Page 59407]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER00-3562-000]


Calpine Energy Services, L.P.; Notice of Issuance of Order

September 29, 2000.
    Calpine Energy Services, L.P. (Calpine) submitted for filing a rate 
schedule under which Calpine will engage in wholesale electric power 
and energy transactions at market-based rates. Calpine also requested 
waiver of various Commission regulations. In particular, Calpine 
requested that the Commission grant blanket approval under 18 CFR part 
34 of all future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability 
by Calpine.
    On September 21, 2000, pursuant to delegated authority, the 
Director, Division of Corporate Applications, Office of Markets, 
Tariffs and Rates, granted requests for blanket approval under part 34, 
subject to the following:
    Within thirty days of the date of the order, any person desiring to 
be heard or to protest the blanket approval of issuances of securities 
or assumptions of liability by Calpine should file a motion to 
intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 
and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 
385.211 and 385.214).
    Absent a request for hearing within this period, Calpine is 
authorized to issue securities and assume obligations or liabilities as 
a guarantor, indorser, surety, or otherwise in respect of any security 
of another person; provided that such issuance or assumption is for 
some lawful object within the corporate purposes of the applicant, and 
compatible with the public interest, and is reasonable necessary or 
appropriate for such purposes.
    The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that 
neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by 
continued approval of Calpine's issuances of securities or assumptions 
of liability.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing motions to 
intervene or protests, as set forth above, is October 23, 2000.
    Copies of the full text of the Order are available from the 
Commission's Public Reference Branch, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, 
DC 20426. The Order may also be viewed on the Internet athttp://
www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-25614 Filed 10-4-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Exhibit 2

Case 6:20-cv-00456-ADA Document 47-2 Filed 01/29/21 Page 1 of 11
Case 6:20-cv-00456-ADA Document 47-2 Filed 01/29/21 Page 2 of 11
Case 6:20-cv-00456-ADA Document 47-2 Filed 01/29/21 Page 3 of 11
Case 6:20-cv-00456-ADA Document 47-2 Filed 01/29/21 Page 4 of 11
Case 6:20-cv-00456-ADA Document 47-2 Filed 01/29/21 Page 5 of 11
Case 6:20-cv-00456-ADA Document 47-2 Filed 01/29/21 Page 6 of 11
Case 6:20-cv-00456-ADA Document 47-2 Filed 01/29/21 Page 7 of 11
Case 6:20-cv-00456-ADA Document 47-2 Filed 01/29/21 Page 8 of 11
Case 6:20-cv-00456-ADA Document 47-2 Filed 01/29/21 Page 9 of 11
Case 6:20-cv-00456-ADA Document 47-2 Filed 01/29/21 Page 10 of 11
Case 6:20-cv-00456-ADA Document 47-2 Filed 01/29/21 Page 11 of 11
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**Certification of Chief Executive Officer**

**Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct Of 2002**

**(18 U.S.C. § 1350)**

 

Inconnection with the quarterly report of SouthWest Water Company (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009 (the “Report”), I,Mark A. Swatek, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. §1350), that:

 

1)     to myknowledge, the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2)     theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| Dated: August 25,  2009 | /s/ MARK A. SWATEK      |   |
|------------------------------|-------------------------|--------|
|                         | Mark A. Swatek          |
|                         | Chief Executive Officer |
|                                                                                 
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                 
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                   
|View History: Annual                                                             
|View History: Annual                                                             
|View History:                                                                    
|                                                                                 
|Louisiana--North Shale Proved Reserves New Field Discoveries (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                 
|                                                                                 
|Louisiana--North Shale Proved Reserves New Field Discoveries (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                 

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 244   
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 48     | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | --     | --     | --     | --    
|2020's                                                                                                                            | --     | --     |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
|                                                                       
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                       
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                         
|View History: Annual                                                   
|View History: Annual                                                   
|View History:                                                          
|                                                                       
|U.S. Dry Natural Gas Reserves Estimated Production (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                       
|                                                                       
|U.S. Dry Natural Gas Reserves Estimated Production (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                       

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1970's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 18,843 | 18,805 | 19,257
|1980's                                                                                                                            | 18,699 | 18,737 | 17,506 | 15,788 | 17,193 | 15,985 | 15,610 | 16,114 | 16,670 | 16,983
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 17,233 | 17,202 | 17,423 | 17,789 | 18,322 | 17,966 | 18,861 | 19,211 | 18,720 | 18,928
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 19,219 | 19,779 | 19,353 | 19,425 | 19,168 | 18,458 | 18,545 | 19,466 | 20,523 | 21,594
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 22,239 | 23,555 | 24,912 | 25,233 | 26,611 | 27,818 | 27,558 | 28,634 | 31,988 | 34,996
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 34,523 | 35,478 |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
1603 Babcock Road Suite 280 San Antonio Texas 78229 Ph: 210.963.5297 Fax: 210.641.3332 info@ggm.law 

June 25, 2021

VIA E-SERVICE

 

Re: Unavailability Notice of Brandon J. Grable Due to Military Service 

Dear Honorable Clerks of the Court and Counsel: 

Please be advised that I will be out on leave for the US Army for the following dates: 

1. July 11, 2021 through July 19, 2021: Army Reserve Duty 

2. July 26, 2021 through July 30, 2021: Army Reserve Duty 

I respectfully ask that no matters bet set for hearing or otherwise during these periods. By 

copy of this letter, I am notifying all counsel of record of this schedule. I will provide copies 

of orders upon request. 

Please contact my office should you have any questions or concerns. 

Thank you for your professional cooperation. 

Brandon J. Grable 

Case 5:20-cv-00642-JKP Document 28 Filed 06/26/21 Page 1 of 1
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Stephen Kubasek, Jr., Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Cowhey, J.), rendered May 23, 1989, convicting him of bribe receiving in the third degree, falsifying business records in the first degree, and receiving reward for official misconduct in the second degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the conduct of the investigators was so egregious as to have denied him due process of law is devoid of merit. We note that such a claim is properly raised by a pretrial motion under CPL 210.40 (1) (e) *(see, People v Longwood,*116 AD2d 590; *People v Zannone,*130 AD2d 699). Because no such motion was made, the issue has not been preserved for appellate review. In any event, the defendant has failed to establish his contention. The evidence demonstrated that the defendant, and not the investigator, had initiated the bribery discussions leading up to the crime, and that the investigators had not acted unlawfully *(cf., People v Isaacson,*44 NY2d 511).

The defendant’s further assertion that his defense of entrapment was made out as a matter of law is also without merit *(see,*Penal Law § 40.05). It is well settled that the question of "[wjhether a defendant is predisposed to commit an offense or was induced to commit the offense is a question of fact” *(People v McGee,*49 NY2d 48, 61, *cert denied sub nom. Waters v New York,*446 US 942; *see, People v Alwadish,*67 NY2d 973), and the trial court did not err in finding that the defendant had failed to establish his defense of entrapment.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not *425against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]). Sullivan, J. P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.
#### SANDERS v. STATE.

No. 26638.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 25, 1953.

W. T. Brothers, Amarillo, for appellant.

Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

*411WOODLEY, Judge.

Upon an indictment charging the offense of assault with intent to murder with malice, appellant was found guilty of aggravated assault and the jury assessed his punishment at one year in jail and a fine of $500.

The sole question presented by appellant’s brief is the sufficiency of the evidence.

The injured party, Stephen Davis, a member of the Air Corps, was cut and stabbed by appellant in a cafe known as “Mattie’s Place” in Amarillo. The knife used was described by appellant as a “bone knife” with a 6-inch blade, and by a state’s witness as a butcher knife with a 12-inch blade.

Wounds inflicted upon Davis in the head and on his arm required some 34 stitches, and he was hospitalized for some two and a half weeks.

Mattie Wooten, the owner, of “Mattie’s Place” testified that appellant came into her cafe about 9 P.M. and she served him a sandwich; that he had a “fifth” of whisky with him and appeared to be drunk; that he took a drink and offered or gave a drink to Davis and to one Perry Martin; “After that, he lay across the table, and I told them to take him up — asked Perry Martin and Tom Templeton and Stephen Davis to put him in the car, and Perry Martin was going to take him home, and he pulled loose and told them he was not drunk and didn’t want them to take him home * * * they turned him loose and Stephen Davis pushed him back and he fell down, and then he jumps up and runs to the kitchen door, and Tom Templeton and myself caught hold of him and tried to pull him .out.”

She further testified that Davis said “I am sorry. I thought you were drunk” and walked out the front door; that appellant went to the kitchen and got a butcher knife and as Davis returned to the room appellant stabbed him in the head, then followed him down the hall and cut him on the arm.

Appellant testified and offered the testimony of Tom Templeton to the effect that the prosecuting witness knocked him down and was advancing toward him and he cut Davis in self-defense.

The prosecuting witness Davis denied that he made any assault upon appellant other than to shove him, and testified that he left the room and it was after his return that he was cut by appellant. He testified that he was standing with his back to the kitchen when he heard someone scream and appellant stabbed him as he turned around.

The trial court submitted to the jury the fact issue as to appellant’s claim of self-defense and they resolved the issue against appellant and in favor of the state.

The evidence sustains the conviction and we find no reversible error.

The judgment is affirmed.
EXHIBIT 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by
reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-144661, 333-143381, 333-125502, 333-116141 and 333-109779 on Form S-8, Registration Statement No. 333-115153 on Form S-1 and in Registration Statement No. 333-139577 on Form S-4, of our
reports dated March 30, 2009 relating to the financial statements of Citadel Broadcasting Corporation (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph related to the adoption of Financial Accounting Standards
Board Interpretation No. 48, Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxesan interpretation of FASB Statement No. 109) and the effectiveness of Citadel Broadcasting Corporations internal control over financial reporting,
appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Citadel Broadcasting Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2008.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

Los Angeles, California

March 30, 2009
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 18 (Monday, January 28, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 5760-5761]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-01656]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers

33 CFR Part 326

RIN 0710-AA66

Civil Monetary Penalty Inflation Adjustment

AGENCY: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) is proposing to amend 
its regulations to adjust its Class I civil penalties under the Clean 
Water Act and the National Fishing Enhancement Act to account for 
inflation. The adjustment of civil penalties to account for inflation 
is required by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 
1990, as amended. Since we have not made any adjustments to our Class I 
penalties to account for inflation since 2004, we are proposing to make 
a second round of penalty adjustments to account for inflation. Using 
the adjustment criteria provided in the statute, the Class I civil 
penalty under the Clean Water Act would remain at $11,000 per 
violation, but the maximum civil penalty would increase to $32,500. 
Under the National Fishing Enhancement Act, the Class I civil penalty 
would remain at $11,000 per violation. Increasing the maximum amount of 
the Class I civil penalty under the Clean Water Act to account for 
inflation will maintain the deterrent effects of the penalty.

DATES: Comments must be received by February 27, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. David Olson at 202-761-4922 or by 
email at david.b.olson@usace.army.mil or access the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers Regulatory Home Page at http://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/CivilWorks/RegulatoryProgramandPermits.aspx.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document concerns the adjustment of the 
Class I civil penalties under the

[[Page 5761]]

Clean Water Act and the National Fishing Enhancement Act to account for 
inflation. For further information, including instructions on how to 
submit comments, please see the information provided in the direct 
final rule that is located in the ``Rules and Regulations'' section of 
this Federal Register publication.

    Dated: January 22, 2013.
Jo-Ellen Darcy,
Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works).
[FR Doc. 2013-01656 Filed 1-25-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3720-58-P
```
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 196 (Tuesday, October 10, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 60219]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-25822]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Special Emphasis Panel in Chemistry; Notice of Meetings

    This notice is being published in accord with the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended). During the period November 
13 through November 29, the Special Emphasis Panel in the Division of 
Chemistry (1191) will be holding panel meetings to review and evaluate 
research proposals. The dates and types of proposals being reviewed 
are:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Dates of meetings                    Types of proposal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
11/13/00  11/14/00........................  Physical Chemistry (Career).
11/13/00  11/14-15/00.....................  Inorganic Chemistry
                                             (Career).
11/16/00  11/17/00........................  Analytical and Surface
                                             Chemistry (Career).
11/27/00  11/28-29/00.....................  Organic and Macromolecular
                                             Chemistry (Career).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Times: 8:30 to 5:00 p.m. each day.
    Place: National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., 
Arlington, VA.
    Type of Meetings: Closed.
    Contact Person: Dr. Janice Hicks, Program Officer, Experimental 
Physical Chemistry, Room 1055, National Science Foundation, 4201 
Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22230, telephone (703) 292-4956.
    Purpose of Meetings: To provide advice and recommendations 
concerning proposals submitted to NSF for financial support.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate proposals submitted to the 
Division of Chemistry as part of the selection process for awards.
    Reason for Closing: 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: October 3, 2000.
Karen J. York,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 00-25822 Filed 10-6-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M