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.                  

###### Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

Pursuant to the provisions of the “Government in the Sunshine Act” (5 U.S.C. 552b), notice is hereby given that at 10:20 a.m. on Tuesday, October 17, 2000, the Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation met in closed session to consider matters relating to the Corporation's supervisory and corporate activities.

In calling the meeting, the Board determined, on motion of Vice Chairman Andrew C. Hove, Jr., seconded by Director Ellen S. Seidman (Director, Office of thrift Supervision), concurred in by Director John D. Hawke, Jr. (Comptroller of the Currency), and Chairman Donna Tanoue, that Corporation business required its consideration of the matters on less than seven days' notice to the public; that no notice earlier than October 12, 2000, of the meeting was practicable; that the public interest did not require consideration of the matters in a meeting open to public observation; and that the matters could be considered in a closed meeting by authority of subsections (c)(2), (c)(4), (c)(6), (c)(8), (c)(9)(A)(ii) and (c)(9)(B) of the “Government in the Sunshine Act” (5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(2), (c)(4), (c)(6), (c)(8), (c)(9)(A)(ii), and (c)(9)(B)).

The meeting was held in the Board Room of the FDIC Building located at 550-17th Street, NW., Washington, DC.

Dated: October 17, 2000.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

James D. LaPierre,

Deputy Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-27150 Filed 10-18-00; 12:27 pm]

BILLING CODE 6714-01-M
#### John V. HERNDON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27192.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 17, 1954.

No attorney on appeal for appellant;

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

DAVIDSON, Commissioner.

This is a conviction for possessing whis-ky for the purpose of sale in a dry area; the punishment, a fine of $250 and ten days in jail.

The information upon which this conviction rests alleges that the election determining that Walker County was a dry area, within the meaning of the Liquor Control Act, Vernon’s Ann.P.C. art. 666-1 et seq., was held on the 3rd day of June,-1954, which was two months after the date it alleged that the offense was committed.

This defect is fatal to the conviction because the information, upon its face, shows that Walker County was -not a dry area, as alleged.

The judgment is reversed and the prosecution ordered dismissed.

Opinion approved by -the court. -
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk September 28, 2009

0921 

# Order

September 28, 2009

139161

ANTHONY DIXON, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 139161 COA: 289774 WCAC: 2007-000244 CHRYSLER L.L.C., f/k/a DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, th e application for leave to ap peal the May 18, 2009 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
3950845-1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN DIVISION 

BRYNNE SOUKUP, ) 

Plaintiff, ) 

) Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-648-RP 

v. ) 

) 

FRONTIER AIRLINES, INC. and ) 

FLIGHT SERVICES & SYSTEMS, LLC, ) 

Defendants. ) 

NOTICE CONCERNING REFERENCE TO 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

In accordance with the provision of 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

73, and the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Flight 

Services & Systems, LLC, through Sarah V. Myers, consents to having a United States Magistrate 

Judge preside over the trial in this case. 

Respectfully Submitted: 

CHAFFE McCALL, LLP 

/s/ Sarah Voorhies Myers 

Sarah Voorhies Myers (pro hac vice) 

Amy L. McIntire (pro hac vice) 

2300 Energy Centre, 1100 Poydras Street 

New Orleans, LA 70163 

T: (504) 585-7000 

F: (504) 544-6092 

E: myers@chaffe.com 

E: mcintire@chaffe.com 

H. Michael Bush 

Texas Bar No.24054296 

2300 Energy Centre,1100 Poydras Street 

New Orleans, LA 70163 

T: (504) 585-7000 

F: (504) 544-6042 

E: bush@chaffe.com 

Attorneys for Defendant, 

Flight Services & Systems, LLC

Case 1:20-cv-00648-RP Document 30 Filed 11/25/20 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 10.11(g)


 


SATISFACTION AGREEMENT


IN RESPECT OF


SUPPLEMENTAL EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT AGREEMENT


 


This Satisfaction of Supplemental Executive Retirement
Agreement (this “Satisfaction Agreement”), dated as of February 22, 2006, relating
to that certain Supplemental Executive Retirement Agreement dated May 4, 1998 (the
“Retirement Agreement”) by and between Equitable Resources, Inc., a
Pennsylvania corporation (the “Company”), and Murry S. Gerber, an individual
(the “Executive”);


 


WITNESSETH:


 


WHEREAS, the Retirement Agreement was entered into
upon Executive’s commencement of employment with the Company and for the
purpose of making up the difference, if any, between the $211,500 per year
early retirement benefit to which the Executive would have been entitled from
his prior employer and the retirement benefit to which he is entitled under the
Equitable Resources, Inc. Employee Savings Plan and the Equitable Resources,
Inc. Deferred Compensation Plan (as in effect on December 31, 2004, the “Employee
Deferred Compensation Plan”);


 


WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Company terminated,
and/or terminated participation in, the Employee Deferred Compensation Plan and
the Equitable Resources, Inc. 2005 Employee Deferred Compensation Plan
(collectively, the “Deferred Compensation Plans”) in 2005, and the Executive
received a payout of his interests therein on December 30, 2005 (collectively, the
“Deferred Compensation Payout”); and


 


WHEREAS, in recognition of the Deferred Compensation
Payout, the parties hereto desire to recognize the satisfaction by the Company
of its obligations under the Retirement Agreement;


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of good and valuable
consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged, and
intending to be legally bound, the Company and the Executive agree as follows:


 


1.             The parties hereto confirm that the Company has
satisfied in full all of its obligations under the Retirement Agreement through
termination of the Deferred Compensation Plans and agree that in accordance
with Section 17 thereof the Retirement Agreement terminated, by its own terms,
immediately upon the Executive’s receipt of the Deferred Compensation Payout and
is of no further force or effect.


 


2.             This Satisfaction Agreement shall be governed and
construed in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.


 

















 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Satisfaction Agreement
as of the date first above set forth.


 


	
   

  	
  EQUITABLE RESOURCES,
  INC.:

  
	
   

  
	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
    /s/
  Charlene Petrelli

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Name:

  	
    Charlene
  Petrelli

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Title:

  	
    Vice
  President, Human Resources

  	
   

  
	
   

  
	
   

  
	
   

  	
  /s/ Murry S. Gerber

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Murry S. Gerber

  
						



 


2
**Exhibit 99.8**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the annual report ofCanadian Superior Energy Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 40-F for the fiscalyear ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Gregory S. Noval, Presidentand Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-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; and

 

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

 

Dated:  March 31, 2006

 
|   | By:    | /s/ GREGORY  S. NOVAL |                                   |
|--------|--------|-----------------------|----------------------------------------|
|   |   | Name:                 | Gregory S. Noval                       |
|   |   | Title:                | President  and Chief Executive Officer |
|        |        |                       |                                        |  |

 

----
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16**  **- 1048** 

JANICE WOLK GRENADIER , Plaintiff

– Appellant ,

v. BWW LAW GROUP, LLC, f/k/a Bierman, Geesing, Ward & Wood, LLC; HOWARD N. BIERMAN; EQUITY TRUSTEES, LLC; MARK R. GALBRAITH; WELLS FARGO; BANK OF AMERICA, f/k/a LaSalle Bank N.A., as successor

- in

- interest, Jointly and Severally, in their Official and Personal Capacities; OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, Jointly and Severally, in their Official and Personal Capacities , Defe ndants

- Appellees

.

**No. 16**  **- 1088** 

JANICE WOLK GRENADIER , Plaintiff

– Appellant ,

v. BWW LAW GROUP, LLC, f/k/a Bierman, Geesing, Ward & Wood, LLC; HOWARD N. BIERMAN; EQUITY TRUSTEES, LLC; MARK R. GALBRAITH; WELLS FARGO; BANK OF AMERICA, f/k/a LaSalle Bank N.A., as successor

- in

- interest, Jointly and Severally, in their Official and Personal Capacities; OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, Jointly and Severally, in their Official and Personal Capacities , Defendants

– Appellees , and2 BANK OF AMERICA, f/k/a LaSal le Bank N.A. , Defendant

.

Appeal s from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria

. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief District Judge ; Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge . ( 1:14

- cv
00827

- LMB

- TCB )

Submitted : August 31, 2016 Decided: September 13, 2016

Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER , Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Janice Wolk Grenadier, Appellant Pro Se. Syed Mohsin Reza, Mary Catherine Zinsner, TROUTMAN SANDERS, LLP, Tysons Corner, Virginia; Nathaniel Patrick Lee, MCGUIREWOODS, LLP, Tysons Corner, Virginia; Robert Ryan Michael, BWW LAW GROUP, LLC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit

.3 PER CURIAM:
Janice Wolk Grenadier appeals the district court ’ s order s denying her motion s for a writ of error and for reconsideration

. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. Grenadier v. BWW Law Group, LLC , No. 1:14

- cv
- 00827

- LMB

TCB (E.D. Va. Nov. 17, 2015; Dec. 23, 2015) . We dispense with

oral a rgument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3060 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.3060

                     One Hundred Thirteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

           Begun and held at the City of Washington on Friday,
           the third day of January, two thousand and fourteen

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
   232 Southwest Johnson Avenue in Burleson, Texas, as the ``Sergeant 
                  William Moody Post Office Building''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SERGEANT WILLIAM MOODY POST OFFICE BUILDING.
    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 232 Southwest Johnson Avenue in Burleson, Texas, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Sergeant William Moody Post Office 
Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Sergeant 
William Moody Post Office Building''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
#### BIGGS v. STATE.

No. 24845.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 23, 1950.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 11, 1950.

■ Merrill & Scott, Houston, for appellant.

A. C. .-Winborn, Criminal Dist. Atty., Houston, E. T. Branch, Asst. Crim. Dist. Atty., Houston, George P. Blackburn, State’s. Atty.,- of Austin, for. the State.

.BEAU.CHAMP, Judge.

The appeal is from a conviction for theft ■yyith a fine of $100 and -six months in jail.

The proceedings appear to be regular. There is no question about the sufficiency of the evidence. There is but one bill of exception. Appellant’s very excellent brief says“The lone question presented in defendant’s bill of exception is the right of the officer to search the -automobile of defendant.” , This is the condition of the record.

The State’s Attorney has called attention to the fact'that the bill fails to show that the car belonged to the appellant. We call attention to Pedigo v. State, 143 Tex.Cr.R. 636, 160 S.W.2d 963 and Chambless v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 216 S.W.2d 203.

The officer arresting appellant testified without objection, “We arrested him and he told us he took the clothes. We arrested the defendant around midnight.” As the record thus stands, the .theft of the goods was admitted to the officers, the. evidence was in without objection, and the testimony was undenied.

We have frequently held in search and seizure cases where the appellant took the witness stand in hi-s own behalf and admitted possession of the liquor involved that an irregularity in the search could not then be availed of to reverse the case. The same rule should apply here. It will not be necessary, therefore, to consider further the argument presented in behalf of the appellant.

The judgment of ‘the trial court is affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7304

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee,

v. CHRISTOPHER HASTINGS, Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (2:98-cr-00600-PMD-1; 2:08-cv-70127-PMD)

Submitted: October 30, 2009 Decided: December 28, 2009

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher Hastings, Appellant Pro Se. Matthew J. Modica, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Christopher Hastings seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2009) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise

debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hastings has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
NUMBER 13-18-00270-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

ULLAH INVESTMENTS, LLC, Appellant,

v.

ABRAHAM ARREDONDO AND 

JOSE CERVANTES, Appellees.

____________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1

of Nueces County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________

ORDER

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Benavides

Order Per Curiam

On July 25, 2018, appellant, Ullah Investments, LLC, filed a notice of bankruptcy 

in this appeal. According to the notice, appellant filed a bankruptcy petition on June 20, 

2018, in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas. 
2

Upon the filing of a bankruptcy petition, an automatic stay becomes effective which 

prohibits the commencement or continuation of any judicial action or proceeding against 

the debtor and any property within the debtor's bankruptcy estate. See 11 U.S.C.A. §

362(a). Pursuant to Rule 8.2 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, the appeal is 

suspended. See TEX. R. APP. P. 8.2. 

Accordingly, this appeal is ABATED until further order of this Court. Any 

documents filed subsequent to the bankruptcy petition will remain pending until the appeal 

is reinstated. The parties are directed to take such action as is appropriate to advise the 

Court of any change in the status of the bankruptcy proceeding which would affect the 

status of this appeal, including but not limited to, the filing of a motion to reinstate pursuant 

to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 8.3. See id. 8.3.

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed 

the 3

rd day of August, 2018.
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 Defense

###### Office of the Secretary

# AGENCY:

Department of Defense Domestic Dependent Elementary and Secondary Schools (DDESS)

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

                        Pursuant to Public Law 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. app. II), the Federal Advisory Committee Act, notice is hereby given that a meeting of the Domestic Advisory Panel (DAP) on Early Intervention and Education for Infants, Toddlers, Preschool Children, and Children with Disabilities is scheduled to be held from 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. on November 14-15, 2000. The meeting is open to the public and will be held at the Hilton Arlington Hotel, 950 N. Stafford Street, Arlington, VA 22203. The purpose of the meeting is to: (1) review the response to the panel's recommendations from its May 2000                               ( print page 61149)                            meeting; (2) review and comment on data and information provided by the Department of Defense Domestic Dependent Elementary and Secondary Schools; and (3) establish subcommittees as necessary. Persons desiring to attend the meeting or desiring to make oral presentations or submit written statements for consideration by the panel must contact Dr. David V. Burket at (703) 696-4354, extension 1455.                    

Dated: October 10, 2000.

L.M. Bynum,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 00-26411  Filed 10-13-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-10-M
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

MATTHEW DUNLEAVY

v.

THE SECRETARY OF HOUSING AND 

URBAN DEVELOPMENT

v.

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS 

TRUSTEE FOR THE RAMC TRUST, 

SERIES 2016-CTT

PETITION OF: MATTHEW DUNLEAVY

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 19 WAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 1st day of August, 2023, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
Group 4 – Google’s Responsive Claim Construction Brief 

(Civil Case Nos. 6:20-cv-00572-ADA, 6:20-cv-00581-ADA, and 6:20-cv-00582-ADA) 

EXHIBIT #1 

Case 6:20-cv-00572-ADA Document 34-1 Filed 02/12/21 Page 1 of 7
Case 6:20-cv-00572-ADA Document 34-1 Filed 02/12/21 Page 2 of 7
Case 6:20-cv-00572-ADA Document 34-1 Filed 02/12/21 Page 3 of 7
Case 6:20-cv-00572-ADA Document 34-1 Filed 02/12/21 Page 4 of 7
Case 6:20-cv-00572-ADA Document 34-1 Filed 02/12/21 Page 5 of 7
Case 6:20-cv-00572-ADA Document 34-1 Filed 02/12/21 Page 6 of 7
Case 6:20-cv-00572-ADA Document 34-1 Filed 02/12/21 Page 7 of 7