alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### TREAS v. TREAS et al.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

June 12, 1951.

C. E. Gordon, Benton, for appellant.

Walter L. Prince, Earl T. Osborne, Benton, for appellees.

CAMMACK, Chief Justice.

Ban A. Treas died intestate. Among his survivors were his widow, Laura Bell Treas, and a nephew, Hollie Treas, the appellant. On the day of Mr. Treas’ death the appellant filed a petition in the Marshall County Court, asking that he be appointed administrator of his uncle’s estate. Several days later the widow filed a waiver of her right to be appointed as administra-trix in the Marshall County Court and nominated in her stead the appellee, B. L. Trevathan. On the same day Mr. Treva-than filed his petition asking to be appointed administrator of the estate. Without notice the county judge appointed Mr. Tre-vathan as administrator. The appellant objected to Mr. Trevathan’s appointment. The controversy was finally determined adversely to the contentions of the appellant and the appeal is from a judgment to that effect.

We think the chancellor properly disposed of the case. The second paragraph of KRS 395.015 reads as follows: “(2) In case of intestacy, if there be no surviving spouse, or if such spouse waives the right of appointment or is not qualified to act and does not nominate a suitable administrator and there are more than one resident heir at law entitled to appointment, the court shall thereupon appoint a time for hearing such application. Notice of said hearing shall be given to the surviving spouse and all known heirs of the deceased residing in the state, in the manner provided in KRS 395.016.”

The first paragraph of KRS 395.040 is as follows: “(l)The court shall grant administration to the relations of the deceased who' apply for administration, preferring the surviving husband or wife, and then such others as are next entitled to distri'bu*594tion, or one or more of them whom the court judges will best manage the estate.”

The question involved is, whether the person nominated by the surviving spouse (Mrs. Treas having waived her right to be appointed as administratrix) can be so appointed in preference to a kinsman without notice and a hearing. We have indicated that the answer is “Yes.” We think this conclusion does no violence to the two sections of the statute quoted above when they are considered together. Mr. Treas left a widow. She was qualified, but waived the right of appointment as ad-ministratrix. However, she did nominate a suitable person to administer the estate. Therefore, no notice or a hearing was necessary. The preference given the surviving husband or wife under KRS 395.040 includes the right of the survivor to nominate a suitable administrator under the conditions set forth in Paragraph 2 of KRS 395.015.

Judgment affirmed.
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 
I 

806 

or criretnal matrlot Attommy, t3heiriff, Coatty C&rk, county ntfxxae~, DlstrlOt Clerk, Tax 

coileotor, Tax mmimorr or thm Aa8wmor an4 

cah0tor: 0r wt38, mwpriva maad 

($!soo.oo) Lkilaar6 oaoh; alatl.80 er the peaa0 

aneconntabla Z&htomIWWrd ($MOO~Wl 

Do- enah.~ 

=a60 Ia-tlO~ sB%?b th8 rourth parugruplb 
Hon. z4cQ iialter, p&g3 &3 
808 

The Lc&Asl%ture Bid not atipulatd *eared 

thm offloe' but rat&r 'earned by him'.= 

lion. Esao Welter, pa&e #6 

Trusting that thie ~swora your lnqdry, we 

vary truly yours 

APPROVE; AUG 7, iY39 

A$ TGEOtUR03 NEY l!R AL EXA# 

COMMII-I-EC
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Tandycrafts,
Inc.'s September 30, 1997 Form 10-Q and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such Form 10-Q filing.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                             623
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   31,803
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,583
<INVENTORY>                                     57,090
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                94,473
<PP&E>                                          50,706
<DEPRECIATION>                                  24,964
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 160,777
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           26,931
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        18,528
<OTHER-SE>                                      67,014
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   160,777
<SALES>                                         55,359
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                55,359
<CGS>                                           35,834
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   53,036
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 862
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,461
<INCOME-TAX>                                       512
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                949
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       949
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3042 

To prohibit the use of the social cost of carbon in any regulatory impact 

analysis until a Federal law is enacted authorizing such use. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

AUGUST 2, 2013 

Mr. MURPHY of Pennsylvania introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and in addition 

to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions 

as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To prohibit the use of the social cost of carbon in any 

regulatory impact analysis until a Federal law is enacted 

authorizing such use. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Taking Hold of Regu5 lations to Increase Vital Employment In Energy Act’’. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3042 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON USE OF SOCIAL COST OF CARBON 

2 IN ANALYSIS. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provi4 sion of law or any executive order, no Federal agency may 

5 use the social cost of carbon in order to incorporate any 

6 social benefits of reducing carbon dioxide emissions in any 

7 regulatory impact analysis unless and until a Federal law 

8 is enacted authorizing such use. 

9 (b) DEFINITION.—In this section, the term ‘‘social 

10 cost of carbon’’ means the social cost of carbon as de11 scribed in the technical support document entitled ‘‘Tech12 nical Support Document: Technical Update of the Social 

13 Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Ex14 ecutive Order 12866’’, published by the Interagency 

15 Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon, United States 

16 Government, in May 2013, or any successor or substan17 tially related document, or any other estimate of the mone18 tized damages associated with an incremental increase in 

19 carbon dioxide emissions in a given year. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON

Assigned on Briefs September 14, 2004

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. LAMAR ROSS

Direct Appeal from the Criminal Court for Shelby County

No. 02-08113 Joseph B. Dailey, Judge

No. W2003-02823-CCA-R3-CD - Filed November 22, 2004

GARY R. WADE, P.J., concurring and dissenting.

I write separately because, in my view, Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. ___, 124 S. Ct. 2531

(2004), precludes the application of enhancement factor (5). While I agree with the majority that the

jury's verdict in count two necessarily includes a finding that the victim is mentally defective, the

verdict does not include a finding that the victim was particularly vulnerable because of his mental

disability, which is required by the statute. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-114(5) (2003). Our

supreme court has held that factor (5) may be used only "if the circumstances show that the victim,

because of his age or physical ormental condition, was in fact 'particularly vulnerable,' i.e., incapable

of resisting, summoning help, or testifying against the perpetrator." State v. Adams, 864 S.W.2d 31,

35 (Tenn. 1993). In my view, the verdict of the jury does not necessarily reflect that fact. In

consequence, factor (5) would not be applicable under the rule established in Blakely. Because only

one enhancement factor remains, I would have modified the sentence to twenty-one years, one year

above the presumptive sentence.

___________________________________ 

GARY R. WADE, PRESIDING JUDGE
#### City of Canton, Appellee, *v.*Washington, Appellant.

(No. 28132

Decided May 8, 1940.)

*Mr. Paul G. Weber,*city solicitor, for appellee.

*Mr. C. E. Hunter,*for appellant.

It is ordered and adjudged that said appeal as of right be, and the same hereby is, dismissed for the rea-

*581son no debatable constitutional question is involved in said cause.

*Appeal dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Day, Zimmerman, Williams, Myers, Matthias and Hart, JJ., concur. s
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 208 (Thursday, October 26, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 64231]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-27528]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[CA-930-5410-00-B128; CACA 41781]


Conveyance of Mineral Interests in California

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Correction.

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

SUMMARY: In the notice document 65-147 beginning on page 46733 in the 
issue of Monday, July 31, 2000, make the following correction; On page 
46733 in the first column the legal description reads sec. 35, W\1/
2\SE\1/4\, NE\1/4\. This should read sec. 35, W\1/2\W\1/2\SE\1/4\, 
NE\1/4\.

    Dated: October 19, 2000.
David Mcilnay,
Chief, Branch of Lands.
[FR Doc. 00-27528 Filed 10-25-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-40-P
### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 22 - 0402

_________________ STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. ADRIAN ABELARDO GARCIA,

Defendant and Appellant. O R D E R

_________________ Appellant Adrian Abelardo Garcia appeals from the May 27, 2022 Sentence, Order to Close File, and Order Exonerating Bond of the Eighth Judicial District Court, Cascade County, in its Cause No. ADC - 20 - 599 . Garcia argues the c ourt erred by failing to give him sufficient credit for time served . The State has filed a Notice of C oncession that this matter should be remanded to the D istrict C ourt for the purpose of entering an amended sentence and judgment . Without agreeing with all arguments Garcia has raised, the State agrees the District Court erred by giving Garcia credit for 422 days served instead of 477 days served . Based on Garcia’s opening brief and the State’s concession, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case is REMANDED to the Eighth Judicial District Court, Cascade County, with instructions for the District Court to amend its Judgment to provide Garcia credit with 477 days served . IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the remainder of this appeal is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that REMITTITUR shall issue IMMEDIATELY UPON REMAND. The Clerk is directed to provide copies of this Order to all counsel of record and to presiding judge Honorable David J. Grubich . Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

February 29 2024

02/29/2024

Case Number: DA 22-0402
### Startup-Shutdown Procedures robert. j .morehouse to: Penny Lassiter, Nick Parsons 03/23/2011 11:53 AM History: This message has been replied to and forwarded. 1 attachment

P&R1 SS provisions 3-23-11.doc

Penny and Nick: info on suggestions for procedures when emissions routed to flare. The other data I owe you will be sent in a separate email shortly . (See attached file: P&R1 SS provisions 3-23-11.doc)
Bob Morehouse ExxonMobil Office: 281-870-6524; Cell: 281-384-5390 robert.j.morehouse@exxonmobil.com
**Exhibit 32.1**

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

In connection withthe Annual Report of AXT, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K forthe year ending December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned herebycertifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

(1)         The Report fully complieswith the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and

(2)         Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| Date: March 30, 2006 |   | By:      |     | /s/ PHILIP C.S.  YIN       |
|---------------------------|--------|----------|----------|----------------------------|
|                      |   |     |     | Philip C.S. Yin            |
| * *                  |   | * * | * * | *Chief  Executive Officer* |

 

----
[No. 35332.

Department Two.

September 8, 1960.]

#### *In the Matter of the Estates of*Betty Mae Waters *and*Leonard Deylone Waters, *Deceased.**1*

*Will M.*Derig, *pro se.*

*Newman & Newman (Lee L. Newman,*of counsel), for respondent.

1

Reported in 355 P. (2d) 8.

Finley, J.

—  This is an appeal by Will M. Derig from a judgment awarding him the sum of two hundred fifty dollars as payment in full for services rendered as attorney for the administratrix of the estates of Betty Mae Waters and Leonard Deylone Waters, both deceased. Appellant Derig contends that the aforesaid amount is inadequate in relation to the time and effort he expended in handling the business and affairs of the estates. Respondent administratrix takes issue with appellant’s claims. Principally, she asserts that appellant has already been paid for certain of the services for which he now seeks compensation. The *718amount to be awarded to an attorney, as compensation for services rendered for an estate, is essentially within the discretion of the trial court. *In re Krueger’s Estate*(1941), 11 Wn. (2d) 329, 119 P. (2d) 312. However, in the instant case we are unable to determine whether that discretion was properly exercised, since the trial court has entered no findings of fact relating to the disputed factual issues raised by the parties. Therefore, in accordance with the views expressed in *Bowman v. Webster*(1953), 42 Wn. (2d) 129, 253 P. (2d) 934, and cases cited therein, the judgment of the trial court is set aside, and the cause remanded with directions to the judge who tried the action to make and enter findings of fact concerning the material issues, appropriate conclusions of law, and to enter judgment thereon from which either party aggrieved may appeal.

Costs on this appeal shall abide the result of the action.

Weaver, C. J., Rosellini, Foster, and Hunter, JJ., concur'.
Order entered March 20, 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 19 - 00195 - CV AEG POWER SOLUTIONS GMBH, Appellant /Cross - Appellee V. CREATION TECHNOLOGIE S TEXAS LLC, Ap pellee /Cross - Appellant

On Appeal from the 14th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC - 18 - 15065



### O RDER This appeal and cross

- appeal stem from separate trial court orders in the same underlying suit
. The underlying suit was filed by Creation Technologies Texas LLC against AEG Power Solutions GMBH (“AEG Germany”), AEG Power Solutions B.V. (“AEG”), and others. The appeal challenges the denial of AEG Germany’s special appearance ; the cross - appeal challenges the grant ing of AEG’ s special appearance. AEG Germany did not request the reporter’s record, and its brief on the merits was timely filed within twenty days of the filing of the clerk’s record. Creation Technologies ’ combined appellee’s and cross

- appellant’s brief is curren tly due April 2, 2019.B ecause different orders and different parties are at issue in the appeal and cross

- appeal,

Creation Technologies has move d to separa te the appeals
. AEG Germany and AEG oppose the motion
. We GRANT the motion and DIRECT the Clerk o f the Court to assign a new appellate cause number to Creation Technol o gies ’ appeal
. The new appeal shall be styled “Creation Technologies Texas LLC v. AEG Power Solutions B.V
. ” As the clerk’s record filed in this appeal contains a copy of the order grant ing AEG’s special appearance, we further DIRECT the Clerk of the Court to include in the new a pp e al a copy of the clerk’s record
. We note t he docketing statement filed by Creation Technologies reflects it requested the reporter’s record February 14, 2019 . As of this date, however, the record has not been filed. Accordingly, we ORDER Diane L. Robert, Official Court Reporter of the 14 th Judicial District Court, to file the record no later than April 1, 2019
. The record shall be filed in the new appeal. Creation Technologies’ brief in the new appeal shall be filed within twenty days of the filing of the reporter’s record
. Its brief in this appeal remains due April 2 nd
. We DIRECT the clerk of the Court to send a copy of this order to Ms. Robert and the p arties. /s/ KEN MOLBERG JUSTICE
Exhibit 10.3


Summary of Executive Compensation of Named Executive Officers

      The current salaries payable to each "named executive officer", as defined
in Item 401 of Regulation S-K, of Franklin Street Properties Corp. (the
"Company") are as follows:

George J. Carter, President and Chief Executive Officer           $225,000

Barbara J. Fournier, Vice President, Chief Operating              $200,000
Officer, Treasurer and Secretary

John G. Demeritt, Chief Financial Officer                         $180,000

R. Scott MacPhee, Executive Vice President                              --

William W. Gribbell, Executive Vice President                           --

      Messrs. MacPhee and Gribbell are Investment Executives of the Company,
whose compensation consists primarily of commissions earned on the sale of
interests in the Sponsored REITs that are syndicated by the Company. As is
standard practice in the investment industry, Investment Executives earn as
commission a percentage of payout of the gross sales commission earned on each
investment sale. The actual amount of compensation earned as commissions is
determined by the level of sales conducted by each individual.

      Each of the executive officers listed above, other than the Investment
Executives, is eligible for a bonus payable in the form of cash and/or shares of
common stock of the Company based on the Company's performance and the
individual's performance during the year. With respect to the 2005 fiscal year,
the Company paid the following cash bonuses:

George J. Carter, President and Chief Executive Officer           $300,000

Barbara J. Fournier, Vice President, Chief Operating              $275,000
Officer, Treasurer and Secretary

John G. Demeritt, Chief Financial Officer                         $235,000

The Company did not pay any bonuses in the form of shares of common stock to any
of the executive officers listed above for the 2005 fiscal year.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 208 (Thursday, October 26, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64207-64208]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-27554]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RT01-74-000]


Carolina Power & Light Company, Duke Energy Corporation, South 
Carolina Electric & Gas Company, GridSouth Transco, L.L.C.; Notice of 
Filing

October 20, 2000.
    Take notice that on October 16, 2000, Carolina Power & Light 
Company, Duke Energy Corporation, and South Carolina Electric & Gas 
Company (collectively, the Applicants), pursuant to Sections 203 and 
205 of the Federal Power Act, jointly filed their Order No. 2000 
compliance filing providing for the creation of a Regional Transmission 
Organization (RTO). The Applicants seek authorization and approval to 
establish GridSouth Transco, LLC as an RTO.
    The Applicants state that they are submitting for approval under 
FPA Section 205 the terms and conditions of GridSouth's OATT, but are 
not at this time seeking approval of rates.

[[Page 64208]]

    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should 
file a motion to intervene, comments, 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). All such 
motions, comments and protests should be filed on or before November 
20, 2000. Protests will be considered by the Commission to determine 
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. This 
filing may also be viewed on the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). Beginning November 
1, 2000, comments and protests may be filed electronically via the 
internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the 
instructions on the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-27554 Filed 10-25-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M