alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## NO. 12

- 1 3

- 00 001

- C V

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

D.B. PARSON AND BRID GET PARSON

, § APPEAL FROM THE 392ND

APPELLANTS

V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

SANDRA ROLLINS, WILL IE PARSON

, TOMMY PARSON AND FLO RA MAE

PARSON JOHNSON,

APPELLEES § HENDERSON COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

This appeal is being dismissed for want of prosecution. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3(b).

Appellants, D.B. Parson and Bri dget Parson, perfected their appeal on January 3, 2013. The

clerk’s record was filed on January 31, 2013. Appellants failed to pay or make arrangements to

pay for the reporter’s record, and on February 21, 2013, the appeal was ordered submitted on the

cl erk’s record alone. The order also included a notice that Appellants’ brief was due on or before

March 20, 2013. However, Appellants did not file a brief.

On March 22, 2013, Appellants were notified that their brief was due to have been filed

on or befo re March 20, 2013, but that neither a brief nor a motion for extension of time had been

filed with the court. Appellants were further informed that the appeal could be dismissed for

want of prosecution unless, no later than April 1, 2013, Appellants filed a motion for extension

of time to file the brief, containing a reasonable explanation for their failure to file it and

showing that Appellee had not suffered material injury thereby. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.8.

The April 1, 2013 deadline for filing Appe llants’ motion for extension of time has passed,

and Appellants have not filed the requested motion. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for2

want of prosecution

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3.(b). All pending objections are

overruled as moot.

Opi nion delivered April 10 , 2013.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(PUBLISH)3 

## COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS



## JUDGMENT

APRIL 10, 2013



### N O. 12

- 13

- 00001

- CV

D.B. PARSON AND BRIDGET PARSON,

Appellants

V.

SANDRA ROLLINS, WILLIE PARSON, TOMMY PARSON

AND FLORA MAE PARSON JOHNSON,

Appellees

_____________________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the 392nd Judic ial District Court

of Henderson County, Texas. (Tr.Ct.No.2012B

- 0596)

_____________________________________________________________________________

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record; and the same

being considered, it is the opinion of th is court that since the appellant has filed no brief in this

cause, the appeal should be dismissed.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this court that

this appeal be, and the same is, hereby dismissed for want of prosecution ; and that this de cision

be certified to the trial court below for observance.

By per curiam opinion.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.
Docket Info.: FAA-2016-0465 Dir ID 2015-NM-096-AD

 Contacts. With whom outside the FAA has this proposal been discussed?

Organization Person Contacted Date Response 

National Business Aircraft Association Eli Cotti 6/11/15

Regional Airline Association 6/11/15

Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association Robert Hackman 6/11/15

Airlines for America Robert Ireland 6/11/15
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 7
<CURRENCY>     U.S. DOLLARS
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1<F1>
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                         1,156,334
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                     114,641
<MORTGAGE>                                           0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                               1,270,975
<CASH>                                          79,883
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                              65,767
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                          93,033
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,615,366
<POLICY-LOSSES>                              1,422,527
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                            559,075
<POLICY-OTHER>                                       0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                175,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       232,012
<OTHER-SE>                                      69,820
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,615,366
<PREMIUMS>                                     154,736
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                             21,621
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                             (3,674)
<OTHER-INCOME>                                   3,790
<BENEFITS>                                     156,791
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                     90,103
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                             8,636
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (105,106)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (22,213)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (82,893)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (82,893)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<RESERVE-OPEN>                               1,063,485
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                             22,350
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                              134,441
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                               1,535
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                               147,352
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                              1,071,389
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0
<FN>
<F1>FOREIGN EXCHANGE MOVEMENT DURING THE YEAR HAS BEEN ALLOCATED TO PRIOR YEAR
PAID CLAIMS.
</FN>


</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.55


 


Director Compensation Summary


 


Each non-employee director of our General Partner is
reimbursed for any travel, lodging and other out-of-pocket expenses related to
meeting attendance or otherwise related to service on the board (including, without
limitation, reimbursement for continuing education expenses). Each non-employee
director who is not the chairman of a committee receives an annual retainer of
$50,000. The chairman of the Audit and Conflicts Committee receives an annual
retainer of $60,000, and the chairman of the Board receives an annual retainer
of $300,000. One twelfth of each of these annual retainers is paid on a monthly
basis to the appropriate board member. Directors who are either officers or
full-time employees of DFI, EPCO, or the General Partner or any of their
affiliates are not compensated for their services as directors.
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 3.03

                            CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT

                                       OF

                AMENDED AND RESTATED CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION

                                       OF

                        ASYMETRIX LEARNING SYSTEMS, INC.



     Asymetrix Learning Systems, Inc., a Delaware corporation, does hereby
certify that the following amendment to the corporation's Amended and Restated
Certificate of Incorporation has been has been duly adopted by the corporation's
Board of Directors and a majority of the stockholders in accordance with
Sections 242 and 245 of the Delaware General Corporation Law:

     Article I of the Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation,
relating to the name of Asymetrix Learning Systems, Inc., is amended to read in
its entirety as follows:

     "The name of the Corporation is click2learn.com, inc."

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, said corporation has caused this Certificate of
Amendment to be signed by its duly authorized officer this 23rd day of November,
1999 and the foregoing facts stated herein are true and correct.

                                      ASYMETRIX LEARNING SYSTEMS, INC.

                                 By: /s/ James A. Billmaier
                                     -------------------------------------------
                                     James A. Billmaier, Chief Executive Officer
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.52

                           CRITICAL THERAPEUTICS, INC.

                    2005 CASH BONUSES FOR EXECUTIVE OFFICERS

      Under the employment agreements dated December 21, 2004 that Critical
Therapeutics, Inc. entered into with its executive officers, each executive
officer is eligible for an annual cash bonus in an amount determined by the
Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors. On November 30, 2005, after
reviewing the level of attainment for our company goals for 2005 and the
contributions made by our executive officers and based on the recommendation of
the Compensation Committee, our independent directors of the Board approved
discretionary cash bonuses for our executive officers in respect of our 2005
fiscal year in the following amounts:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Executive Officer                  Title                                                                 Cash Bonus
-----------------                  -----                                                                 ----------
<S>                                <C>                                                                   <C>
Paul D. Rubin, M.D.                President and Chief Executive Officer                                 $  110,000

Frederick Finnegan                 Senior Vice President of Sales and Marketing                          $   53,000

Walter Newman, Ph.D.               Chief Scientific Officer and Senior Vice President of                 $   54,000
                                   Research and Development

Trevor Phillips, Ph.D.             Chief Operating Officer and Senior Vice President of                  $   49,000
                                   Operations

Frank E. Thomas                    Chief Financial Officer, Senior Vice President of Finance and         $   47,000
                                   Treasurer

Scott B. Townsend, Esq.            Vice President of Legal Affairs and Secretary                         $   43,000
</TABLE>

      The cash bonuses were paid in January 2006 and were included in accrued
expenses as of December 31, 2005.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3169 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3169

To clarify the application of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act to the Internal Revenue Service, to require the Service to 
  convene a regulatory review panel for certain rules, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 23, 2013

Mr. Michaud (for himself and Mr. Denham) introduced the following bill; 
 which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition 
  to the Committee on Small Business, 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 clarify the application of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act to the Internal Revenue Service, to require the Service to 
  convene a regulatory review panel for certain rules, 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 ``IRS Rulemaking Fairness Act of 
2013''.

SEC. 2. CLARIFICATION OF APPLICATION OF G TO INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE.

    (a) In General.--Section 603(a) of title 5, United States Code, is 
amended--
            (1) by inserting after ``to the extent that such 
        interpretative rules'' the following: ``, or the statutes under 
        which such rules are made,''; and
            (2) by inserting before the period at the end the 
        following: ``or recordkeeping requirement''.
    (b) Definitions.--Section 601 of title 5, United States Code, is 
amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``and'' at the end; and
            (2) in paragraphs (7) and (8) to read as follows:
            ``(7) the term `collection of information' has the meaning 
        given such term in section 3502(3) of title 44, United States 
        Code; and
            ``(8) the term `recordkeeping requirement' has the meaning 
        given such term in section 3502(13) of title 44, United States 
        Code.''.

SEC. 3. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE REQUIRED TO CONVENE REGULATORY REVIEW 
              PANEL.

    Section 609(d) of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (2), by striking ``and'' at the end;
            (2) in paragraph (3), by striking the period at the end; 
        and
            (3) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(4) the Internal Revenue Service.''.
                                 <all>
```
1 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont 

____________________ 

NO. 09-14-00378-CV 

____________________ 

IN RE DAVID EARL STANLEY 

_______________________________________________________ ______________ 

 Original Proceeding 

________________________________________________________ _____________ 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

David Earl Stanley filed an original petition for a writ of mandamus to 

compel the Judge of the 258th District Court to rule on motions that Stanley filed 

in a forfeiture proceeding. Stanley states that he filed the motions pro se while 

represented by counsel. “[A] trial court is under no mandatory duty to accept or 

consider pleadings filed pro se by a party who is represented by counsel.” In re 

Sondley, 990 S.W.2d 361, 362 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1999, orig. proceeding); see 

also Tex. R. Civ. P. 7. We deny the petition for writ of mandamus. 

 PETITION DENIED. 
2 

 

 

 PER CURIAM 

Submitted on September 24, 2014 

Opinion Delivered September 25, 2014 

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.
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

# SUMMARY:

The Defense Science Board (DSB) Task Force on High Energy Laser Weapon Systems Applications will meet in closed session on November 14-15, 2000; December 14-15, 2000; January 23-24, 2001; February 21-22, 2001; March 13-14, 2001; April 17-18, 2001; and May 15-16, 2001, at Strategic Analysis Inc., 3601 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22201.

The mission of the Defense Science Board is to advise the Secretary of Defense and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology & Logistics on scientific and technical matters as they affect the perceived needs of the Department of Defense. At these meetings, the Task Force will review on-going or proposed programs in high energy laser (HEL) applications; examine recent supporting technology advancements and their applications with respect to supporting military HEL weapon system developments; develop potential military and strategic HEL system applications and identify processes required to implement these potentials; determine what needs to be done to weaponize these systems; and assess HEL operational concepts, impacts and limitations, considering legal, treaty and policy issues concerning HEL employment.

In accordance with Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, P.L. No. 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. II, (1994)), it has been determined that these Defense Science Board meetings, concern matters listed in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1) (1994), and that accordingly these meetings will be closed to the public.

Dated: October 12, 2000.

L.M. Bynum,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 00-27015  Filed 10-19-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-10-M
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. RT01-34-000]

Take notice that on October 13, 2000, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (SPP), tendered for filing a request for recognition as a Regional Transmission Organization (RTO). SPP states that the filing includes its Open Access Transmission Tariff revised to meet all of the RTO requirements of Order No. 2000.

The Applicants state that copies of the filing were served on all SPP members and customers, as well as on all state commissions within the region.

                    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 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. 00-27553 Filed 10-25-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 204 (Wednesday, October 22, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 63207]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-25162]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice: 8928]

In the Matter of the Designation of Qari Hussain as a Specially 
Designated Global Terrorist Pursuant to Section 1(b) of Executive Order 
13224, as Amended

    In accordance with section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224 of 
September 23, 2001, as amended (``the Order''), I hereby determine that 
the individual known as Qari Hussain, also known as other aliases and 
transliterations, no longer meets the criteria for designation under 
the Order, and therefore I hereby revoke the designation of the 
aforementioned individual as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist 
pursuant to section 1(b) of the Order.
    This notice shall be published in the Federal Register.

    Dated: October 10, 2014.
John F. Kerry,
Secretary of State.
[FR Doc. 2014-25162 Filed 10-21-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-10-P
```
[ J
- 110
- 201 6 ] [M.O.

– Todd, J.] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENN SYLVANIA ,

A ppellant

v.

SHAWN LAMAR BURTON ,

A ppellee : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 9 WAP 2016 Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court entered August 25, 2015 at No. 1459 WDA 2013, vacating the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County entered August 27 , 1 993 at Nos. CP

- 02

- CR

- 0004017

- 1993 and CP

- 02

- CR

- 0004276

- 1993 and remanding

.

SUBMITTED : September 9, 2016

CONCURRING OPINION

CHIEF JUSTICE SAYLOR DECIDED: MARCH 28, 2016

I join the majority opinion based upon the precedent established by Commonwealth v. Bennett , 593 Pa. 382, 930 A.2d 1264 (2007), supplemented by the present opinion’s developed explication of the unreasonableness in enforcing a strong presumption of access to public records at least as against unrepresented prisoners. To the extent that the majority undertakes to reaf firm and buttress the logic of
Bennett , however, I continue to have great difficulty with the approach to statutory construction by which the Bennett majority decoupled the “facts” contemplated by Section 9545(b)(ii) of the PCRA from the “claims” serving a s the explicit bases for statutory post

- conviction relief per Section 9543(a). See Bennett , 593 Pa. at 402

- 10,
930 A.2d at 1275

- 80 (Saylor, J., dissenting).