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

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. RP00-343-000]

                    On June 15, 2000, Kinder-Morgan Interstate Gas Transmission Company (Kinder Morgan) submitted a filing to comply with Order No. 637. Several parties have protested various aspects of Kinder-Morgan's filing. On August 18, 2000, Kinder Morgan submitted certain substitute                     *pro forma*                     tariff sheets to reflect the Commission's action in an order issued July 26, 2000, in Docket No. RP00-316-000. In that order, the Commission accepted in part and rejected in part certain tariff changes proposed by Kinder-Morgan.                

Take notice that a technical conference to discuss the various issues raised by Kinder-Morgan's filing will be held on Wednesday, November 1, 2000, at 10 a.m., in a room to be designated at the offices of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426. Parties protesting aspects of Kinder-Morgan's filing should be prepared to discuss alternatives.

All interested persons and Staff are permitted to attend.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-26126 Filed 10-11-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 20
- 0 159 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. TYLER FREDERICK ERICKSON,

Defendant and Appellant
.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including December 23 , 2020 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

November 17 2020

11/17/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0159
##### 



Exhibit 10.1 ENESCO GROUP, INC.
2004 ROA INCENTIVE PLAN The ROA (Return on Assets) Incentive plan is based entirely on company
profitability. This incentive rewards eligible employees for their part in
helping Enesco meet three financial goals. The following are the components of
the plan: Components of the Incentive Plan 1)
    
    Sales
    
    
    20
    %2)
    
    Operating Income as a % of Sales
    
    
    40
    %3)
    
    Return on Assets
    
    
    40
    %
 Employees are eligible for a sliding scale of incentive compensation based on
company profit. Employees incentive opportunity depends of the employees
position in the company and Enescos attainment of goals. Employees bonuses
are based on W-2 earnings. Eligibility To be eligible for the incentive plan you must be employed by September 30 of
the current year and be an active employee through the end of the year. Enesco may at anytime and from time to time, amend, modify or suspend this plan
with/without prior notice.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACO DIVISION

WSOU INVESTMENTS, LLC d/b/a )

BRAZOS LICENSING AND )

DEVELEOPMENT, ) Case No. 6:20-cv-489-ADA

)

Plaintiff, )

v. )

)

ZTE CORPORATION, ZTE (USA), INC., )

AND ZTE (TX), INC., )

)

Defendants )

ORDER

NOW this matter is before the Court on Defendant ZTE (USA) Inc.’s Unopposed Motion, 

filed on September 25, 2020, seeking an enlargement of time to answer or otherwise plead to the 

Complaint. The current deadline for Defendant to answer or otherwise plead is September 29, 

2020. Defendant has requested an additional ten (10) days from the current deadline, until October 

9, 2020, to make its filing. Plaintiff offers no objection to the enlargement of time requested by 

Defendant.

The Court FINDS good cause exists to grant the relief requested.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT Defendant shall have an additional ten (10) 

days, until Friday, October 9, 2020, to file their answer or responsive motion.

DATED THIS ____ day of _____________, 2020.

__________________________________________

ALAN D. ALBRIGHT

JUDGE OF THE DISTRICT COURT

Case 6:20-cv-00490-ADA Document 19-1 Filed 09/25/20 Page 1 of 1
#### Earl C. BREWER, Appellant, v. STATE, Appellee.

No. 22823.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 26, 1944.

Rehearing Denied May 24, 1944.

Coleman Cline, Chas. T. Groce, and W. E. Myres, all of Fort Worth, for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

KRUEGER, Judge.

The conviction is for aggravated assault. The punishment assessed is confinement in the county jail for a period of two years.

This is a companion case to No. 22,822, styled Brewer v. State of Texas, 180 S.W.2d 167, and the punishment assessed is the same in each instance. The facts are similar in each case, and from what we have said in Cause No. 22,822, it follows that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed, and it is so ordered.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
p

Estimated Costs: 

Action Costs per Product {e.g., aircraft, engine, 

(e.g., Inspection, I propeller, appliance) Labor Parts Cost Total Costs Number of Total Cost replacement) (include cost (labor+ u.s. for U.S. Fleet Do not include 

condition costs here access, testing, (@$85/h parts) Registered and mrr) Products 

One time inspection 7 54 

Replacement HPC 8-10 780,000 I Spool 

The known number of products in compliance: :\ um b-: r 

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $812,130 

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $\\"a:mr:L:-

On-Condition Costs: 

Action Work-hours Labor cost Parts Cost Cost per Product 

(e.g., Inspection, (include access, (@$85/howc) 

replacement) testing, and close- up) 

Inspection 

7
Exhibit 99.1

                 INTERSTAR SECURITISATION MANAGEMENT PTY LTD
                       OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

The undersigned  officer of Interstar  Securitisation  Management Pty Limited, a
company  organized  under  the  laws  of  Victoria,  Australia  ("ISM"),  hereby
certifies on behalf of ISM and on his own behalf for  purposes of the  Interstar
Millennium  Series  2002-1G Trust Class A2 Mortgage  Backed  Floating Rate Notes
(the "Notes"), as follows:

1. I am a duly appointed, qualified and acting officer of ISM,

2. I am duly  authorized to execute and deliver this  officer's  Certificate  on
   behalf of ISM; and

3. To the  best of my  knowledge,  the  Issuer  Trustee  has  complied  with all
   conditions and covenants under the Transaction  Documents,  for the Interstar
   Millennium Series 2002-1G issue of Notes for the period between July 17, 2003
   and the end of the Manager's fiscal year on June 30, 2003.  Capitalized terms
   used and not defined herein shall have the meanings assigned to such terms in
   the Note Trust Deed related to the above-referenced issue of Notes.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed my name as of January 12, 2004.



/s/ Sam Kyriacou
-----------------------
Name: Sam Kyriacou
Title: Director, Interstar Securitisation
       Management Pty
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 198 (Thursday, October 12, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 60670]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-26116]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of Banks 
or Bank Holding Companies

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank 
Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and Sec. 225.41 of the Board's 
Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. 
The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth 
in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal 
Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for 
inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons 
may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for 
that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must 
be received not later than October 25, 2000.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas (W. Arthur Tribble, Vice 
President) 2200 North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201-2272:
    1. Kyle Lee Thompson, Dallas, Texas, trustee of The Gass Family 
Trust, Dallas, Texas; to retain voting shares of Founders Bancshares, 
Inc., Dallas, Texas, and thereby indirectly retain voting shares of 
Founders National Bank, Dallas, Texas.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, October 5, 
2000.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 00-26116 Filed 10-11-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**Officer’s Certification**

 

I, Preston A. Miller, Chief Financial Officerand Treasurer of AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc. (“AmeriCredit”), certifythat:

 

1.               I have reviewed this annual report on Form10-K/A, and all reports on Form 8-K containing distribution or servicingreports filed in respect of periods included in the year covered by this annualreport, of AmeriCredit Automobile Receivables Trust 2002-B;

 

2.               Based on my knowledge, the information inthese reports, taken as a whole, does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading as of the last day of the period covered by this annual report;

 

3.               Based on my knowledge, the servicinginformation required to be provided to the trustee by the servicer under thesale and servicing agreement is included in these reports;

4.               I am responsible for reviewing the activitiesperformed by the servicer under the sale and servicing agreement and based uponthe review required under the sale and servicing agreement, and except asdisclosed in the report, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under thesale and servicing agreement; and

 

5.               Thereports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the servicer’scompliance with the minimum servicing standards based upon the report providedby an independent public accountant, after conducting a review in compliancewith the Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers or similarprocedure, as set forth in the sale and servicing agreement, that is includedin these reports.

 

 
| Date:                                  | April 21, 2004        |   |
|----------------------------------------|-----------------------|--------|
|                                   | /s/ Preston A. Miller |   |
| Preston  A. Miller                     |
| Chief  Financial Officer and Treasurer |
|                                        |                       |        |  |  |

 

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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
SPECTRUM CONTROL, INC. CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET (UNAUDITED) AT
MAY 31, 1999 AND CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME
(UNAUDITED) FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED MAY 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO ITS FORM 10-Q FOR THE PERIOD ENDED MAY 31, 1999
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000092769
<NAME> SPECTRUM CONTROL, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-31-1999
<CASH>                                              73
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    17068
<ALLOWANCES>                                       465
<INVENTORY>                                      21464
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 39016
<PP&E>                                           39333
<DEPRECIATION>                                   18473
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   75316
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            16078
<BONDS>                                          20822
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         14490
<OTHER-SE>                                       21623
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     75316
<SALES>                                          39867
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 39867
<CGS>                                            28444
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    28444
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 388
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   3824
<INCOME-TAX>                                      1451
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               2373
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      2373
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .22
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .22


</TABLE>
Exhibit 15



May 3, 2001

Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, Northwest
Washington, D.C.  20549
Attention:  Document Control

Commissioners:

We are aware that our report dated April 24, 2001 on
our review of condensed consolidated interim financial
information of 7-Eleven, Inc. and Subsidiaries (the
"Company") as of and for the three months ended March
31, 2001, and included in the Company's quarterly
report on Form 10-Q for the quarter then ended, is
incorporated by reference in the following
Registration Statements:


                                   REGISTRATION NO.
                                   ----------------
On Form S-8 for:

  7-Eleven, Inc. 1995 Stock Incentive
    Plan                                      33-63617

  7-Eleven, Inc. Supplemental Executive
    Retirement Plan for Eligible Employees   333-42731

  7-Eleven, Inc. Stock Compensation
    Plan for Non-Employee Directors          333-68491


Very truly yours,

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP
Dallas, Texas





                                  Tab 2
# -Stateof-­ 

# North Dakota Office of the Governor 

## John Hoeven Governor July 27, 2010

Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator c/oJames B. Martin, Reg. Administrator (8RA) US EPA, Region 8 1595 Wynkoop Street Denver, CO 80202-1129 Re: Supplement No.1 to North Dakota State Implementation Plan for Regional Haze Dear AdministratorJackson: The State ofNorth Dakota is hereby submitting Supplement No.1 to the North Dakota State Implementation Plan (SIP) to address the requirements for Regional Haze ofSection 308 of40 CFRPart 51 Requirements for the Preparation, Adoption, and Supplemental of Implementation Plans, SubpartP - Protection ofVisibility. This supplement was prepared by the North Dakota Air QualityDivision. The supplement evaluates the R.M. Heskett Station Unit 2 for additional controls under the reasonable progress portion ofthe Regional Haze rules. The Department ofHealth and Montana Dakota Utilities have agreed to limestone injection into the bubbling fluidized bed boiler which will achieve at least 70% ofreduction ofpotential sulfur dioxide emissions. With this submission, I am requesting the US Environmental Protection Agency approval ofthis supplement to the Regional Haze SIP. Ifyou have any questions regarding this supplement, please contactTerry O'Clair, P.E., Director ofAir Quality, North Dakota Department ofHealth at 701-328-5188. incerely, 

# 4

c;z::::-_

# ~L-.h,..r---­ Hoeven

Enclosure C: Dave Glatt, Chief, Environmental Health Section Terry O'Clair, Division ofAir Quality Gail Fallon, US EPA, Region 8 38:47:56 600 E Boulevard Ave. Bismarck, ND 58505-0001 Phone: 701.328.2200

Fax: 701.328.2205

www.nd.gov
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.

BRUCE LEIGHTON DIEHL,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 13

- 30 287

D.C. No. 4:12

- cr

- 00189

- EJL

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Idaho

Edward J. Lodge, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 5 , 2014 **

Before: HAWKINS

, McKEOWN , and FRIEDLAND , Circuit Judges

.

Bruce Leighton Diehl appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 72

- month sentence im posed following his guilty

- plea conviction for

unlawful possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

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

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

DEC 12 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 13

- 30287

Diehl contends that the district court erred by denying his pre

- trial motio n to

suppress evidence. D iehl concedes that he entered an unconditional guilty plea.

He , therefore, waived the right to appeal the denial of his suppression motion.

See Tollett v . Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 267 (1973)

. Furthermore, contrary to

Diehl’s conte ntion, the record reflects that his plea was voluntary

.

Diehl next contends that the court abused its discretion in imposing the

sentence because the court made factual findings to determine Diehl’s base offense

level in violation of the Sixth Amendment

. This argument fails because t he court’s

factual findings affected neither the statutory maximum sentence nor any mandatory

minimum sentence applicable to Diehl’s convict ion and , therefore, the Sixth

Amendment was not violated

. See United States v. Vallejos , 742 F.3d 902, 906

- 07

(9th Cir. 2014).

AFFIRMED.
#### WOODROW v. STATE.

No. 22813.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 29, 1944.

Rehearing Denied May 24, 1944.

' D. C. Bennett, of Orange, and David E. O’Fiel, of Beaumont, for appellant.

*161Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of the offense of sodomy and assessed a penalty of seven years in the penitentiary.

A number of issues "discussed in appellant’s brief will not be considered because they are raised only by assignments of error. We have repeatedly stated that questions may not be brought to this court in that manner.

The State relies upon a written confession signed by appellant in which, without detailing the facts, he merely says that he had intercourse with a cow. He does not describe the cow but it appears from his statement that his act was with one cow and that he then tried another. Failing in his purpose he stabbed the second cow. All of the State’s evidence relates to the second cow. There is no evidence whatsoever corroborating or tending to corroborate his story about the first cow. He led the officers to his home and showed them a pair of trousers which he said belonged to him. The officers found hair of a cow on the trousers but there is no indication that it was from the particular cow in question. The evidence of a veterinary surgeon and of a medical doctor, both called by the State, is conclusive that some other object than the private organ of a human being had been inserted in the cow and caused her death, thus refuting in a very positive way, the one fact stated in the confession which was relied upon for the conviction. An extra judicial confession will not support a conviction unless the corpus delicti is proven in some manner prescribed by law. See Scott v. State, 141 Tex.Cr.R. 296, 148 S.W.2d 418; Franklin v. State, 140 Tex.Cr.R. 251, 144 S.W.2d 581; Patterson v. State, 140 Tex.Cr.R. 661, 146 S.W.2d 993, 995.

The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause is remanded.

On Motion for Rehearing.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

Upon the State’s insistence, we have again examined the facts to ascertain if there be evidence, circumstantial or otherwise — outside of, and other than, the appellant’s confession — lending to show that the crime of sodomy was committed, by someone, so as to establish the corpus de-licti. We fail to so find. It follows that we remain convinced the corpus delicti has not been shown.

The -State’s motion for rehearing is overruled.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
Exhibit 23.1             CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM    We have made a review, in accordance with standards established by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), of the unaudited interim financial information of The Standard Register Company for the thirteen weeks ended April 3, 2011, as indicated in our report dated May 2, 2011; because we did not perform an audit, we expressed no opinion on that information.  We are aware that our report referred to above, is incorporated by reference in this Form 10-Q, into the Company's previously filed Registration Statements File No.'s 333-02683, 333-05231, 333-15851, 333-43055, 333-51189, 333-51181, 333-57779, 333-84483, 333-86492 and 333-173805.  We are also 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/BATTELLE & BATTELLE LLP  Dayton, Ohio May 2, 2011
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 17-1128

___________________________

Clifford Scott Eaton

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Helena

____________

 Submitted: August 29, 2017 

Filed: September 14, 2017

[Unpublished]

____________

Before LOKEN, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.
Federal inmate CliffordEaton appeals after the district court adversely granted 1

summary judgment in his action under the Federal Tort Claims Act.

After careful de novo review of the summary judgment decision, see Johnson

v. Blaukat, 453 F.3d 1108, 1112 (8th Cir. 2006) (standard of review), we affirm for

the reasons stated by the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

The Honorable Kristine G. Baker, United States DistrictJudge for the Eastern 1

District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations ofthe HonorableBeth

Deere, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

-2-