alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### FLANAGAN v. STATE.

No. 25099.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 17, 1951.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

Stewart W. Heilman, ' Cr. Dist. Atty., Truman Power, Asst. Cr. Dist. Atty., and Ronald Aultman, Asst. Cr. Dist. Atty., all of Fort Worth, George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

The appeal is from a conviction for aggravated assault with a fine of $200.00.

Appellant and the injured party were in company with the same crowd at some kind of drinking place until near midnight. As they left the place appellant had two girls in his car, one -of whom asked the injured party to follow them. He did so and after they had travelled about five or six miles, on their way home, the prosecuting witness ran into and collided with the car of appellant as he stopped for a red light. The witness said it was accidental. He noticed that appellant was getting out of his car as he reached for what the witness took to be a pistol in the' glove compartment. The witness then drove ahead but was soon overtaken by appellant who caused him to stop. Appellant got out of his car, called the witness out of his car and demanded his car key. As the witness turned to get the key appellant struck him over the head, inflicting an injury that caused him to be taken to the hospital. There seems to be little 'dispute about these facts.

The record comes to us with two bills of exception but we are not permitted under the law to consider them because they are in question and answer form, and there is no certificate of the trial judge that it was necessary to prepare them in that form in order that they be best understood. This question has been so frequently before the court that it docs not appear to be necessary to again cite the authorities.

We have carefully examined the entire record and find that the evidence is sufficient to sustain the jury’s verdict and no irregularity appears of record. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Exhibit 10.50
                                                                   -------------



                                              November 17, 2005


Marijn E. Dekkers
President and CEO
Thermo Electron Corporation
81 Wyman Street
Waltham, MA 02454

Dear Marijn:

     This letter confirms our agreement as to the following:

     That,  in order to  comply  with the  proposed  regulations  issued  by the
Internal  Revenue Service and the Treasury  Department under Section 409A of the
Internal  Revenue  Code,  notwithstanding  any provision to the contrary in your
Amended & Restated Employment Agreement (the "Agreement"),  in the event of your
Termination due to Disability,  Termination for Cause, Termination without Cause
or for Good Reason,  or  Termination  upon  expiration of the Term, all payments
owing to you  under the  Agreement  by the  Company  shall be made to you by the
Company in a lump sum within thirty days of such Termination.


                                              Very truly yours,



                                              /s/ Elaine S. Ullian
                                              ----------------------------
                                              Elaine S. Ullian
                                              Chair
                                              Thermo Electron Corporation
                                              Compensation Committee


ACCEPTED AND AGREED:

By:   /s/ Marijn E. Dekkers
      -----------------------------
      Marijn E. Dekkers
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.                  

###### National Credit Union Administration

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Becky Baker, Secretary of the Board, Telephone (703) 518-6304.

Becky Baker,

Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 00-27587  Filed 10-23-00; 2:11 pm]

BILLING CODE 7535-01-M
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6488

LAMONT EUGENE COLBERT,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

THOMAS R. CORCORAN; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE

STATE OF MARYLAND,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Alexander Harvey II, Senior District

Judge. (CA-97-3846-H)

Submitted: December 29, 1998 Decided: January 19, 1999

Before WIDENER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lamont Eugene Colbert, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr.,

Attorney General, David Jonathan Taube, Assistant Attorney General,

Ann Norman Bosse, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND,

Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court’s order denying relief on

his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp.

1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of

the district court. See Colbert v. Corcoran, No. CA-97-3846-H (D.

Md. Mar. 24, 1998). 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
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2655 Engrossed in House (EH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2655

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To amend Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to improve 
            attorney accountability, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act of 
2013''.

SEC. 2. ATTORNEY ACCOUNTABILITY.

    (a) Sanctions Under Rule 11.--Rule 11(c) of the Federal Rules of 
Civil Procedure is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``may'' and inserting 
        ``shall'';
            (2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``Rule 5'' and all that 
        follows through ``motion.'' and inserting ``Rule 5.''; and
            (3) in paragraph (4), by striking ``situated'' and all that 
        follows through the end of the paragraph and inserting 
        ``situated, and to compensate the parties that were injured by 
        such conduct. Subject to the limitations in paragraph (5), the 
        sanction shall consist of an order to pay to the party or 
        parties the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred as a 
        direct result of the violation, including reasonable attorneys' 
        fees and costs. The court may also impose additional 
        appropriate sanctions, such as striking the pleadings, 
        dismissing the suit, or other directives of a nonmonetary 
        nature, or, if warranted for effective deterrence, an order 
        directing payment of a penalty into the court.''.
    (b) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this Act or an amendment made 
by this Act shall be construed to bar or impede the assertion or 
development of new claims, defenses, or remedies under Federal, State, 
or local laws, including civil rights laws, or under the Constitution 
of the United States.

            Passed the House of Representatives November 14, 2013.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
113th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 2655

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

  To amend Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to improve 
            attorney accountability, and for other purposes.
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE>                                           5
<MULTIPLIER>                                     1,000

<S>                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   6-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         Dec-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                            Jan-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                              Jun-30-2000
<CASH>                                          5,166
<SECURITIES>                                    1,219
<RECEIVABLES>                                  11,102
<ALLOWANCES>                                   17,111
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    0
<PP&E>                                         28,621
<DEPRECIATION>                                 11,131
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                443,880
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               0
<BONDS>                                       405,619
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           5,827
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                       29,313
<OTHER-SE>                                   (23,870)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  443,880
<SALES>                                        20,623
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               48,778
<CGS>                                          16,575
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  16,575
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               21,994
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                8,266
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             16,662
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (14,719)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (14,719)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (14,719)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (2.83)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (2.83)



</TABLE>
Page 1 of 1

Meeting Summary

EPA/Iofina Chemical Inc.

April 12, 2011, 10:30 AM to 11:30 AM

Room S-9621, 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA 22202

Participants

Iofina Chemical Inc.: Tom Becker and Kurt Jones

EPA: Patricia Moe, Lance Wormell, Stacey Grigsby, Jaclyn Carl, Rebecca von dem 

Hagen

Summary

On Tuesday, April 12, 2011, Pesticide Reevaluation Division (PRD) and Antimicrobials 

Division (AD) hosted a meeting with trichloromelamine (TCM) registrant Iofina 

Chemical Inc. The registrant requested the meeting with two divisions in EPA’s Office 

of Pesticide Programs to discuss Data Call-Ins issued as a result of the 2005 RED. The 

registrant requested to meet with PRD’s Risk Management and Implementation Branch V 

(RMIB V) to discuss the RED Product Specific Data Call-In (PDCI) issued in October 

2008. The registrant also requested the meeting to discuss the RED Generic Data Call-In 

(GDCI) with AD, specifically regarding the status of Iofina’s waiver requests.

Next Steps

EPA will continue to work with Iofina and respond to waiver requests in the near future.
that Braecklein be suspended from the practice of law for six months and 

one day and, as a condition of reinstatement, that Braecklein be required 

to retake the MPRE and attend at least 3 hours of CLE specifically 

relating to the handling of IOLTA trust accounts. Finally, the panel 

recommended that Braecklein be required to pay the costs associated with 

the proceedings, pursuant to SCR 120. 

This court's automatic review of a disciplinary panel's findings 

and recommendations is de novo, SCR 105(3)(b); In re Discipline of Stuhff, 

108 Nev. 629, 633, 837 P.2d 853, 855 (1992), and therefore we "must 

examine the record anew and exercise independent judgment," In re 

Discipline of Schaefer, 117 Nev. 496, 515, 25 P.3d 191, 204 (2001). 

Although we are not bound by the disciplinary panel's recommendations, 

those recommendations are persuasive. Id. The State Bar has the burden 

of showing by clear and convincing evidence that Braecklein committed 

the violations charged. In re Discipline of Drakulich, 111 Nev. 1556, 1566, 

908 P.2d 709, 715 (1995). In determining the appropriate discipline, this 

court considers four factors: "the duty violated, the lawyer's mental state, 

the potential or actual injury caused by the lawyer's misconduct, and the 

existence of aggravating or mitigating factors." In re Discipline of Lerner, 

124 Nev. 1232, 1246, 197 P.3d 1067, 1077-78 (2008). 

While we conclude that clear and convincing evidence 

supports the panel's findings of misconduct, we do not agree that the 

panel's recommended discipline is commensurate with the misconduct 

committed. Accordingly, we hereby suspend Judith Braecklein from the 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

2 

(0) I94Th 
Gibbons 

, J 

, J. 

Pickering 

practice of law for one year commencing from the date of this order. We 

further approve the reinstatement conditions recommended by the hearing 

panel with the added condition that restitution, if any, be paid in full. 

Finally, Braecklein shall pay the costs associated with the disciplinary 

proceedings within 30 days from her receipt of the State Bar's bill of costs, 

see SCR 120, and shall comply with SCR 115 and SCR 116. The State Bar 

shall comply with SCR 121.1. 

It is so ORDERED. 

cc: Chair, Southern Nevada Disciplinary Board 

Judith H. Braecklein 

Bar Counsel, State Bar of Nevada 

Kimberly K. Farmer, Executive Director, State Bar of Nevada 

Perry Thompson, Admissions Officer, U.S. Supreme Court 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

3 

(0) 1947.4 es.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3402 

To improve the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by explicitly barring 

debt collectors from bringing legal action on a debt in which the statute 

of limitations has expired against any consumer, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 30, 2013 

Mr. COHEN (for himself, Mr. CONYERS, Ms. NORTON, and Ms. MOORE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To improve the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by explicitly barring debt collectors from bringing legal action 

on a debt in which the statute of limitations has expired 

against any consumer, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Fair Debt Collection 

5 Improvement Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. COLLECTION OF TIME-BARRED DEBT. 

7 (a) LEGAL ACTIONS ON TIME-BARRED DEBT.—Sec8 tion 811 of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (15 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3402 IH

1 U.S.C. 1692i) is amended by adding at the end the fol2 lowing: 

3 ‘‘(c) A debt collector may not bring, or threaten to 

4 bring, legal action against any consumer on a debt in 

5 which the statute of limitations has expired.’’. 

6 (b) COMMUNICATION WITH CONSUMERS WITH TIME7 BARRED DEBT.—Section 805 of such Act (15 U.S.C. 

8 1692c) is amended— 

9 (1) by redesignating subsection (d) as sub10 section (e); and 

11 (2) by inserting after subsection (c) the fol12 lowing: 

13 ‘‘(d) COMMUNICATION WITH CONSUMERS WITH

14 TIME-BARRED DEBT.—In connection with the collection 

15 of debt in which the statute of limitations has expired, 

16 a debt collector shall disclose to a consumer the following: 

17 ‘‘(1) The debt has been transferred to the debt 

18 collector. 

19 ‘‘(2) The creditor no longer holds the debt. 

20 ‘‘(3) As a result of the expiration of the statute 

21 of limitations with respect to such debt, the debt col22 lector may not bring legal action against the con23 sumer to collect such debt. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 3402 IH

1 ‘‘(4) Any payment by the consumer towards the 

2 debt may cause the statute of limitations for such 

3 debt to reset.’’. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
CERTIFICATION
OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORTS
  
 I,
Steven J. Cohen, Chief Executive Officer of Z Trim Holdings, Inc., an Illinois
corporation (the "Registrant"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
  (1)
the Report on Form 10-K for the period of the Registrant from January 1, 2009
through December 31, 2009 (the "Report") which this statement
accompanies fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
  (2)
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  
 
 Dated:  April
9, 2010
 By                 /s/ Steven J.
Cohen
 Steven J. Cohen
 President and Director
 
 A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished 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 Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket Nos. ER00-2964-000 and ER00-2964-003]

Take notice that on October 18, 2000, West Georgia Generating Company (West Georgia), an Exempt Wholesale Generator that owns and operates a 640 MW electric generation plant in Thomastown, Georgia, tendered for filing a Power Purchase Agreement between West Georgia Generating Company L.P. and Oglethorpe Power Corporation (the Agreement). The purpose of the filing was to provide corrected designations under Order No. 614, FERC Stats. and Regs. ¶31,096 (2000), as required by the letter order issued in these dockets on September 21, 2000.

West Georgia requests that the Agreement be permitted to become effective June 6, 2000.

                    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 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 and protests should be filed on or November 8, 2000. Protests will be considered by the Commission to determine the                           ( print page 64697)                        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.*

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-27779  Filed 10-27-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Preliminary Permitting Action for Veolia in Sauget , Preliminary Permitting Action for Veolia in Sauget ,Il.

David Ogulei David Ogulei to: Reed, Michael 11/28/2012 03:20 PM

Cc: "Bakowski, Ed"

FYI - George Czerniak shared this information with Laurel earlier today . I'm forwarding this to you 

to ensure that you also get this timely.

-David 

We will be sending the enclosed documents to Veolia tomorrow for a two week review prior to putting 

the permitting actions on notice. I wanted to give you a heads up as well as extend Illinois EPA the 

opportunity to provide input to us during this two week preliminary review period . 

EPA has made a preliminary determination to deny the feedrate limits requested by Veolia , and to 

incorporate into a revised Title V permit feedrate limits that EPA considers to be supported by the 

available performance test data and federal regulations. EPA will propose periodic monitoring 

requirements to ensure compliance with EPA's proposed feedrate limits. 

David Ogulei is the permit writer. Please share any comments on the preliminary draft permit and 

other materials directly with him by December December December 14,2012. 

Veolia SOB_November 2012.pdf Veolia Sig Mod_November 2012.pdf

Veolia Fact Sheet 11-27-12.pdf Veolia NOID_November 2012.pdf

David Ogulei 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Region 5 | Air & Radiation Division | A-18J 

77 West Jackson Blvd. | Chicago, Illinois 60604 

Phone: (312) 353-0987 | Fax: (312) 692-2080

Ogulei.David@epa.gov
Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed January 10, 2019

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14- 18 -00779- CV

LINDSEY J. LEARD, Appellant

V.
WELLS FARGO BANK, NA , Appellee

On Appeal from the 56th District Court Galveston County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 18- CV -0397

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
This is an appeal from a final judgment signed August 7, 2018. Appellant’s brief was due November 5, 2018. No brief or motion for extension of time to file the
brief was filed.

On November 13, 2018 , the court ordered appellant to filed a brief by

December 5 , 2018

. We cautioned that if appellant failed to comply with our order, we would dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b).
No brief or motion for extension of time to file the brief was filed.Therefore, the appeal is DISMISSED

.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Christopher, Hassan, and Poissant.