alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-10(U)



 






Exhibit 10.(u).




Schedule Identifying Material Details of

Executive Agreements Substantially Similar to Exhibit 99.1 to Huntington’s

Current Report on Form 8-K dated November 21, 2005




	 	 	 
	Name

	 	Effective Date
	 
	 	 
	Ronald C. Baldwin

	 	January 1, 2006
	Thomas E. Hoaglin

	 	January 1, 2006






Schedule Identifying Material Details of

Executive Agreements Substantially Similar to Exhibit 99.2 to Huntington’s

Current Report on Form 8-K dated November 21, 2005




	 	 	 
	Name

	 	Effective Date
	 
	 	 
	Daniel B. Benhase

	 	January 1, 2006
	Richard A. Cheap

	 	January 1, 2006
	Donald R. Kimble

	 	January 1, 2006
	Mary W. Navarro

	 	January 1, 2006
	Nicholas G. Stanutz

	 	January 1, 2006






Schedule Identifying Material Details of

Executive Agreements Substantially Similar to Exhibit 99.3 to Huntington’s

Current Report on Form 8-K dated November 21, 2005




	 	 	 
	Name

	 	Effective Date
	 
	 	 
	James W. Nelson

	 	January 1, 2006
	Mahesh Sankaran

	 	January 1, 2006
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 204 (Friday, October 20, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63102-63103]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-26982]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Special Emphasis Panel in Chemical and Transport Systems; Notice 
of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meeting:

    Name: Special Emphasis Panel in Chemical and Transport Systems 
(1190).
    Date and Time: November 20, 2000; 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Place: 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 530, Arlington, VA 22230.
    Type of Meeting: Closed.
    Contact Person: Dr. Stefan T. Thynell, Program Director, Thermal 
Transport & Thermal Processing, Division of Chemical & Transport 
Systems, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 525, Arlington, VA 22230. (703) 
292-8371.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and recommendations 
concerning proposals submitted to NSF for financial support.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate nominations for the FY 2000 
Career Panel of proposals as part of the selection process for 
awards.
    Reason for Closing: The proposals being reviewed include 
information of a

[[Page 63103]]

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 16, 2000.
Karen J. York,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 00-26982 Filed 10-19-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
#### THOMPSON v. STATE.

No. 25199.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 28, 1951.

No attorney on appeal, for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

GRAVES, Presiding Judge.

Appellant, as a second offender, received a penalty of two years in the state penitentiary for driving a motor vehicle upon a public highway while intoxicated, from which conviction he appeals.

He now offers in this court his proper affidavit, stating that he no longer desires to prosecute his appeal from such judgment.

The request is granted and the appeal is therefore dismissed.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2942 Engrossed in House (EH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 2942

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To amend title 38, United States Code, to reestablish the Professional 
  Certification and Licensure Advisory Committee of the Department of 
                           Veterans Affairs.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. REESTABLISHMENT OF PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATION AND LICENSURE 
              ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

    (a) Reestablishment.--Section 3689(e)(5) of title 38, United States 
Code, is amended by striking ``December 31, 2006'' and inserting 
``December 31, 2019''.
    (b) Appointment of New Members.--In reestablishing the Professional 
Certification and Licensure Advisory Committee under subsection (e) of 
section 3689 of title 38, United States Code, pursuant to subsection 
(a), the Secretary of Veterans Affairs may appoint new members of the 
Committee under paragraph (3)(A) of such subsection (e) without regard 
to the individuals who served as members before the date of the 
enactment of this Act.

            Passed the House of Representatives May 28, 2014.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
113th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 2942

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To amend title 38, United States Code, to reestablish the Professional 
  Certification and Licensure Advisory Committee of the Department of 
                           Veterans Affairs.
```
#### COOPER v. WARD, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

March 21, 1952.

T. E. Moore, Jr., Hazard, Leslie Morris and Marion Rider, Frankfort, for appellant.

M. B. Fields, Hazard, for appellee.

CULLEN, Commissioner.

In an original proceeding in this Court, ■Claude V. Cooper sought a writ of prohibition restraining and prohibiting Hon. S. M. Ward, regular judge of the Perry ■Circuit Court, from taking any further steps or proceedings in the case of Cooper v. Cooper, in which Judge Ward had entered a judgment for alimony in favor of Mr. Cooper’s divorced wife. The petition also prayed that any further proceedings under the judgment be stayed until the further orders of this Court. The main .ground for the writ was that Judge Ward had no jurisdiction to act in the case, because of an agreement that the case be tried by a special judge.

Pending the filing of briefs, a temporary restraining order was issued.

While this matter was under submission, an appeal from the judgment in question was taken to this Court, and was forthwith advanced and submitted. The nature of the issues involved made it appropriate that we consider, together, the petition for a writ of prohibition and the appeal on the merits of the case.

We have reversed the judgment on the appeal, with directions for the entry of a new judgment. See Cooper v. Cooper, Ky., 248 S.W.2d 702. This disposition of the appeal renders moot the question of granting a writ of prohibition. It also makes it unnecessary for us to pass on the motion of Judge Ward to dismiss the petition for a writ of prohibition, based on the ground that his term has expired and he is no longer judge of the Perry Circuit Court.

The petition for a writ of prohibition is denied, and the temporary restraining order heretofore, issued is dissolved, effective as of the date the mandate of this Court becomes effective in the case of Cooper v. Cooper.

COMBS, J., not sitting.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-60448

Summary Calendar

HUGO ALBERTO PEREZ, also known as Hugo Albert Moreno,

Petitioner

v.

LORETTA LYNCH, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A201 064 108

Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Hugo Alberto Perez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review 

of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ dismissal of his appeal of the immigration 

judge’s denial of his application for withholding of removal. Perez argues that 

the agency erred in denying his application for withholding of removal. He 

asserts that he established past persecution and a well-founded fear of future 

persecution based upon his membership in a particular social group, namely, 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 11, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-60448 Document: 00513075418 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/11/2015
No. 14-60448

2

people who have been threatened and harmed by gangs based on their refusal 

to join the gang. He further contends that Mexican authorities are unwilling 

or unable to protect him.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Perez’s application 

for withholding of removal. We have previously rejected a similar argument 

that young men who were recruited by criminal gangs constitute a particular 

social group because the proposed group lacked the necessary social visibility 

and did not meet the particularity test. See Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 

F.3d 511, 518 (5th Cir. 2012). Perez has not shown that his claim is 

distinguishable from that alleged in Orellana-Monson. Therefore, he has not 

shown that the evidence compels a conclusion that it is more likely than not 

that he will be persecuted on account of his membership in this particular 

social group if he is removed to Mexico. See Orellana-Monson, 685 F.3d at 518;

Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 2005) .

The petition for review is DENIED.

 Case: 14-60448 Document: 00513075418 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/11/2015
March 29, 2011 

Mr. Gregg George 

Chief Pilot and Senior Principal Systems Engineer 

Raytheon 

P.O. Box 11337 

Tucson, AZ 85734-1337 

Dear Mr. George: 

We have received your March 29, 2011, correspondence withdrawing your February 9, 2011, 

petition on behalf of Raytheon for an exemption from § 91.215(a) of Title 14, Code of Federal 

Regulations. 

Your letter has been placed in the public docket (No. FAA-2011-0144). No further action 

will be taken on your petition. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Ida M. Klepper 

Manager, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 206 (Tuesday, October 24, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63579-63580]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-27269]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP01-52-000]


Southwest Gas Storage Company; Notice of Request for Exemption

October 18, 2000.
    Take notice that on October 13, 2000, Southwest Gas Storage Company 
(Southwest) tendered for filing, in accordance with the Commission's 
Order Granting Clarification in Docket No. RM96-1-016 issued September 
28, 2000, 92 FERC para. 61,266 (2000), a request for an exemption from 
the requirement to implement imbalance netting and trading on its 
system in conformance with section 284.12(c)(2)(ii) of the Commission's 
Regulations. Southwest's shippers do not incur imbalances and are not 
subject to imbalance penalties. Accordingly, there are no imbalances to 
net or trade on Southwest's system.
    Southwest states that copies of this filing are being served on all 
affected customers and applicable state regulatory agencies.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules 
and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed on or 
before October 25, 2000. Protests will be considered by the commission 
in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve 
to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to 
become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing 
are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection 
in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at 
http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/

[[Page 63580]]

rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-27269 Filed 10-23-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Smurfit-Stone Container Enterprises, Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2009 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, JohnR. Murphy, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

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

 

(2) The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/ John R. Murphy                                 |   |
|----------------------------------------------------|--------|
| John R. Murphy                                     |   |
| Senior Vice President  and Chief Financial Officer |   |
| August 10, 2009                               |   |

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906, or other documentauthenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appearsin typed form within the electronic version of this written statement requiredby Section 906, has been provided to Smurfit-Stone Container Enterprises, Inc.and will be retained by Smurfit-Stone Container Enterprises, Inc. andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
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 Agriculture

###### Forest Service

# AGENCY:

Forest Service, USDA.

# ACTION:

Notice of Meeting. 

# SUMMARY:

The Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC) will meet on November 2, 2000, at the Hilton Hotel, 921 SW 6th Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97204-1296. The purpose of the meeting is to continue discussions on the implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan (NFP). The meeting will begin at 9:30 a.m. and continue until 3:30 p.m. Agenda items to be discussed include, but are not limited to: orientation for new IAC members, the status of the Survey and Manage Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, and progress reports on ongoing NFP-related implementation issues.

The IAC meeting will be open to the public and is fully accessible for people with disabilities, Interpreters are available upon request in advance. Written comments may be submitted for the record at the meeting. Time will also be scheduled for oral public comments. Interested persons are encourage to attend.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Questions regarding this meeting may be directed to Steve Odell, Executive Director, Regional Ecosystem Office, 333 SW 1st Avenue, P.O. Box 3623, Portland, OR 97208 (Phone: 503-808-2166).

Dated: October 16, 2000.

Stephen J. Odell,

Designated Federal Official.

[FR Doc. 00-27115  Filed 10-20-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
#### SEARCY et al. v. STATE.

No. 25568.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 12, 1951.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

Henry Wade, Dist. Atty., J. J. Fagan, Asst. Dist. Atty., Dallas, George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

WOODLEY, Commissioner.

Appellants Joe J. Danna and Max Rud-berg are the sureties of Tennison Searcy on a bond required by a magistrate for his appearance to answer a burglary charge.

Following his indictment, Tennison Sear-cy failed to appear.

A judgment nisi was entered and following service, was made final.

No brief has been filed by appellants following their notice of appeal, and the state’s motion to dismiss the appeal must be granted. See Bell v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 244 S.W.2d 210.

The appeal is dismissed.

Opinion approved by the Court
#### STANFIELD v. STATE.

No. 24044.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 13, 1948.

For original opinion and opinion on first motion for rehearing, see Tex.Crim.App., 212 S.W.2d 516.

Nelson & McCleskey, of Lubbock, for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, of Austin, for the State.

On Appellant’s Second Motion for Rehearing.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Appellant has filed an application for permission to file a second motion for rehearing. The ground set up in said motion, which appellant seeks to file, was not presented to this Court nor considered by it in the original submission, or the motion for rehearing.

It is alleged that the appellant took $120.-00 "lawful money of the United States.” The proof shows the amount of money, but none was offered to show that it was “lawful money of the United States.” Relying upon an old line of authorities in which this Court did so hold for a great many years, it is sought through a second motion to have the case reversed. Reliance is had chiefly on Early v. State, 56 Tex.Cr.R. 61, 118 S.W. 1036, and the authorities following it.

Attention is called to Bledsoe v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 210 S.W.2d 165, in which the Early case and all others following it are specifically overruled. We think the correct' doctrine was laid down in Neufield v. United States, 73 App.D.C. 174, 118 F.2d 375, 386, in which it was said, “A jury is entitled to draw reasonable inferences from the facts proved and to take language at its ordinary meaning.” It is further reasoned that, “ ‘money’ in common parlance means money of the United States.” See also Guyon v. State, 89 Tex.Cr.R. 287, 230 S.W. 408; Colter v. State, 37 Tex.Cr.R. 284, 39 S.W. 576; People v. Fiereto, 303 Ill. 186, 135 N.E. 417, in which it is held that the word money imports value.

Appellant’s application for permission to file a second motion for rehearing is denied.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 208 (Thursday, October 26, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 64236]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-27529]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE


Notice of Consent Judgment Pursuant to the Clean Air Act

    In accordance with Departmental Policy, 28 CFR 50.7, 38 FR 19029, 
notice is hereby given that a proposed consent decree in United States 
v. Rymes Heating Oils, Inc. and James Rymes, DOJ #90-5-2-1-06111, Civ. 
No. 00-453-B, was lodged in the United States District Court for the 
District of New Hampshire on September 19, 2000. The consent decree 
resoles the liability of defendants Rymes Heating Oils and James Rymes 
under section 211 of the Clean Air Act (``CAA''), 42 U.S.C. 7545, and 
regulations promulgated thereunder, for violations of statutory and 
regulatory requirements pertaining to the use of reformulated gasoline 
and low-sulfur motor vehicle diesel fuel.
    Under the terms of the proposed consent decree, defendants are 
obligated, jointly and severally, to pay $200,000 as a civil penalty to 
the Government for their violations of the CAA and regulations. 
Additionally, defendants certify that they are in compliance with he 
CAA and regulations pertaining to fuels, and they agree to comply in 
the future with those provisions.
    The Department of Justice will receive, for a period of thirty (30) 
days from the date of this publication, written comments relating to 
the proposed consent decree. Comments should be addressed to the 
Assistant Attorney general for the Environment and Natural Resources 
Division, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. 20530, and should 
refer to United States v. Rymes Heating Oils, Inc. and James Rymes, DOJ 
#90-5-2-1-06111. The proposed Consent Decree may be examined at the 
Office of the United States Attorney, District of New Hampshire, 55 
Pleasant Street--Room 312, Concord, New Hampshire 03301; and at the 
Region I Office of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, One 
Congress Street, Suite 1100--RCA, Boston, Massachusetts 02114-2023. 
Copies of the Consent Decree may be obtained by mail from the Justice 
Department Consent Decree Library, P.O. Box 7611 Ben Franklin Station, 
Washington, DC 20044, (202) 514-1547. In requesting a copy, please 
enclose a check in the amount of $4.00 (25 cents per page reproduction 
costs) payable to the Consent Decree Library.

Bruce Gelber,
Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and Natural Resources, 
Division.
[FR Doc. 00-27529 Filed 10-25-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-15-M
Opinion issued September 2 2 , 2022

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01 - 21 - 0022 8 - CR NO. 01 - 21 - 00229 - CR

——————————— NATHANIEL JONES III , Appella nt

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appell e e On Appeal from the 228th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Ca se No s . 1267896 - B & 1267897 - B
MEMORANDUM OPINION2

Appellant Nathaniel Jones III contends t hat the trial court abused its discretion by failing to comply with the Rule 18(f) requirement of either granting a motion to recuse or referring a request to the presiding judge. 1 We dismiss this appeal. Jones was convicted of the offenses of murder and aggravated assault and was sentenced to 45 years’ confinement for each conviction. See Jones v. State , Nos. 01

- 10

- 00821

- CR & 01

- 10

- 00822

- CR, 2011 WL 4612655, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] Oct. 6, 2011, pet. ref’d). The clerk’s record indicates that Jones filed a
ver ified motion to recuse in these two trial court causes. At the bottom of Jones’ motion is the trial court’s signature, with a handwritten ruling granting the motion, and a date of signing. The State has filed a motion to dismiss these appeals on the groun d that we lack jurisdiction. The State claims that there is no right to appeal an order granting recusal and any attempt to appeal the failure to rule on a motion to recuse would be moot because the trial court has granted the motion
. Once a motion to re cuse has been filed, a trial court must either recuse himself or refer the request to the presiding judgment to assign a judge to hear the motion. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 18a( f ). Here, the trial court entered a handwritten ruling at the

1 Jones also filed two petitions for writ of mandamus challenging the trial court’s failure to enter an order of recusal. These petitions were denied on November 5, 2021. See In re Jones , Nos. 01

- 20

- 00676

- CR & 01

- 20

- 00677

- CR, 2020 WL 6493994, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] Nov. 5, 2020, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).3

bottom of the recusal motion, granting the motion and signing his name on September 9, 2020. An order granting a motion to recuse is final and cannot be reviewed by appeal or mandamus. See T EX . R. C IV . P. 18a(j). Because Rule 18a(j) states that no appeal is permitted from a trial court’s grant of a recusal motion, we lack jurisdiction over this appeal. Accordingly, we grant the State’s motion and dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Any pending motions are dismissed as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Kelly, Rivas

- Molloy , and Guerra
. Do not publish. T EX . R. A PP . P. 47.2(b).