alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 B E C K H A M , L I SA S u b j ec t: A D E Q NS R SI P Su b m itt al L o c a t io n: R9

- C o nfLin e - Ca rd 1

- A I R

_ O nl y /C o nf

- Lin e/ R e gi o n - 9

- R ES T R I CT ED S t a r t: W e d 10 / 15 / 2014 2 : 30 PM E nd: W e d 10 / 15 / 2014 3 : 00 PM R ec u rre n ce: (n o n e) M ee t i ng S t a tu s: M ee ting o rg a ni z er Or g a n i z er: B E C KH AM , LISA R e qu i re d Att e nd ee s: St e v e B urr; R9

- Roo m - 1702

- 8

- A I R

_ O nl y- L o r a x/ R e gi o n - 9

- R ES T R I CT ED R e s o u rce s: R 9

- C o nfLin e - Ca rd 1

- A I R

_ O nl y /C o nf

- Lin e/ R e gi o n - 9

- R ES T R I CT ED
O o p s f o r go t t o i n cl ud e t h is : Call i n # 8 6 6
- 29 9
- 3 1 8 8 , C o d e 2 57
- 6 5 5 4 I te m s f o r d isc u ss i o n : R 18
- 2
- 3 3 4 n o t o n lis t o f r u l e s f o r s ub m i tt a l A b s e n c e o f R 18
- 2- 3 34 f r o m t h e li s t o f s ub m i t t e d r u l e s i n th e Oc t o b e r

29 , 2 01 2 s u b mi t t al
. S ub mi tt a l o t h e r w is e d is c u s s e s t h is r u l e as b e i n g d e v e l o p e d fo r S I P a p p r o v al
. A p p e ars t o b e a t y p o g ra ph i c al e rr o r . Inn ov a t i v e C o n t r o l Te c hn o l o g y R 18-2
- 40 8 n o t i n c l u d e d i n S I P s ub m i tt a l
. N o t a r e qu ir e d e l e m e nt , b u t

s ee ms li k e A D E Q w o u l d w a nt t h is o p t i o n i n t h e S I P . Las t r e v is e d i n 1993 . W as t h is p r e v i o u sl y s ub m i tt e d t o E P A ? C a n e asil y s ub m i t a t t im e o f s ub m i tt a l t o c o r r e c t lim i t e d d is a pp r o v a l i s s u e s . Visi b ili ty p r o te c t i o n R 18-2
- 41 0 n o t i n c l u d e d i n S I P s ub m i tt a l
. R e q u ir e d fo r a p p r o v al o f

P S D p r o gram . Th e r e a r e similar r e qu ir e m e n t s al re a d y i n t h e S I P , s o c a n s t il l a c t a s limi t e d d i s a pp r o v al
. Was t h is p r e v i o u sl y s u b mi t t e d t o EP A ? R 18
- 2
- 3 06 . 0 1 a nd R 18
- 2
- 3 06 . 0 2 W h a t 's th e d i f f e r e n c e ? R 18
- 2
- 3 3 2 (E) C o n t ai n s a r e f e r e n c e t o R 18
- 1
- 40 1
- n o t i n S I P , n o t s u b m i t t e d f o r a pp r o v al
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

KYLE DAMOND JONES,

Plaintiff,

v. No. 4:22-CV-00281-P

TARRANT COUNTY COLLEGE DISTRICT ET 

AL.,

Defendants.

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND 

RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The United States Magistrate Judge made Findings, Conclusions, 

and a Recommendation in this case. ECF No. 11. No objections were 

filed, and the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation is ripe for review. 

The District Judge reviewed the proposed Findings, Conclusions, and 

Recommendation for plain error. Finding none, the undersigned District 

Judge believes that the Findings and Conclusions of the Magistrate 

Judge are correct, and they are accepted as the Findings and 

Conclusions of the Court. 

The Court therefore ORDERS that Plaintiff’s claims are 

DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to comply with the Court’s 

orders. ECF No. 11.

SO ORDERED on this 11th day of October 2022.

Case 4:22-cv-00281-P Document 15 Filed 10/11/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 44
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 26 (Tuesday, February 8, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6228-6229]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-2857]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration


Exemption Application No. D-10384; Deutsche Bank AG, et al. 
(Deutsche Bank)

AGENCY:  Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration,Labor (the 
Department).

ACTION:  Notice of technical correction.

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

    On February 1, 2000, the Department published in the Federal 
Register (65 FR 4843) a notice of proposed exemption for Deutsche Bank 
which

[[Page 6229]]

would allow the assets of certain employee benefit plans to be invested 
in synthetic guaranteed investment contracts (the Buy & Hold Synthetic 
GICs) that would be offered by Deutsche Bank. Due to a printing error, 
appearing on page 4846 of the proposed exemption in Representation 7, 
the formula for computing the Crediting Rate for each Buy & Hold 
Synthetic GIC, was stated as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN08FE00.022

The Department notes that the correct formula for calculating the 
Crediting Rate is
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN08FE00.023

and it hereby amends the proposal.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Jan D. Broady of the Department at 
(202) 219-8881. (This is not a toll-free number.)

    Signed at Washington, DC this 3rd day of February, 2000.
Ivan L. Strasfeld,
Director of Exemption Determinations, Pension and Welfare Benefits 
Administration, Department of Labor.
[FR Doc. 00-2857 Filed 2-7-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-29-P
#### PATRICK v. STATE.

No. 25363.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 3, 1951.

On Motion to Reinstate Appeal Nov. 14, 1951.

Bracewell & Wright, by Reginald Brace-well, Huntsville, for appellant.

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

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Appellant was convicted on a charge of assault with intent to murder and assessed eighteen months in the penitentiary.

The record in the case shows that an appeal bond was filed during the term of court, which recites that no recognizance was entered into during the term. Under the state of the record this court has no jurisdiction and the appeal is accordingly dismissed.

On Appellant’s Motion to Reinstate Appeal.

DAVIDSON, Commissioner.

It now being made to appear that a recognizance was properly entered into in the trial court, appellant’s motion to reinstate the appeal is granted and the case will be disposed of upon its merits.

The conviction is for assault with intent to murder without malice.

The injured party was the estranged wife of the appellant; they were living separate and apart. According to the state’s testimony, appellant, without justification or excuse, stabbed the injured party in the left cheek, the right breast, and the groin, inflicting serious bodily injuries as a result of which the injured party was hospitalized.

Appellant did not deny the stabbing. He did deny, however, an intent to kill, and sought a suspension of sentence.

Appellant complains of the action of the trial court in refusing to permit a witness to testify in support of appellant’s good reputation.

According to the bill of exception, the witness did not show himself qualified to to testify relative thereto, because the opinion which the witness would have expressed *708was based upon his own personal beliefs and not upon the general reputation of the appellant as to the trait of character inquired about.

In Watson v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 244 S.W.2d 515, the rule was again followed which requires that a character witness must base his testimony upon the general reputation of the person involved and not upon the witness’ individual opinion.

We note that in passing sentence upon the appellant the trial court failed to apply the provisions of the indeterminate sentence law, Art. 775, C.C.P., Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P. art. 775. Tucker v. State, 136 Tex.Cr.R. 586, 127 S.W.2d 300; Swidan v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 238 S.W.2d 537, Accordingly, the sentence is now reformed so as to fix appellant’s punishment at not less- than one year nor more than eighteen months in the penitentiary, the minimum punishment for the instant offense being, under Art. 1160, P.C., one year.

No error appearing, and the sentence being reformed, the judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the court.
Case 3:22-cr-00115-L Document 39 Filed 06/06/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID 82
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
     form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 1998 and is qualified in its
     entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>


<MULTIPLIER>                                  1
<CURRENCY>                                    US$
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                  JUN-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                               1
<CASH>                                        427,493
<SECURITIES>                                  1,248,438
<RECEIVABLES>                                 746,528
<ALLOWANCES>                                  25,000
<INVENTORY>                                   704,499
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              3,230,637
<PP&E>                                        883,728
<DEPRECIATION>                                403,583
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                3,731,279
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         444,694
<BONDS>                                       300,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0
<PREFERRED>                                   0
<COMMON>                                      52,937
<OTHER-SE>                                    2,933,648
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  3,731,279
<SALES>                                       1,969,899
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              2,015,188
<CGS>                                         997,509
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 997,509
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              963,858
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            20,672
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               33,146
<INCOME-TAX>                                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           33,146
<DISCONTINUED>                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0
<CHANGES>                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                                  33,146
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 .01
        


</TABLE>
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-21-00608-CV

Bradley Smith, Appellant

v.

Lorena Smith, Appellee

FROM THE 459TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

NO. D-1-FM-20-007149, THE HONORABLE J. ANDREW HATHCOCK, JUDGE PRESIDING

O R D E R A N D M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

PER CURIAM

Bradley Smith has filed a notice of appeal of the trial court’s oral rendition of a 

divorce dissolving his marriage to Lorena Smith. However, Bradley’s notice of appeal is 

premature because the trial court has not yet signed a divorce decree, see Tex. R. App. P. 26.1, 

27.1(a), and this Court requested that Bradley provide authority as to how this Court may 

exercise jurisdiction over his appeal in the absence of a signed final judgment. See Lehmann v. 

Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001) (providing general rule that appeal may be 

taken only from final judgment); see Tex. R. App. P. 26.1 (providing timetable for perfection of 

appeal based on date judgment is signed). Bradley has filed a response requesting that this Court 

abate this appeal until the trial court signs the divorce decree and rules on his pending motion for 

new trial, either expressly or by operation of law.
2

This Court grants Bradley’s motion to abate this appeal. The appeal is abated 

until further order of this Court. The trial court shall file a supplemental clerk’s record with this 

Court within thirty days of its losing plenary power of this cause. The supplemental record 

should include the signed final divorce decree and the trial court’s ruling, if any, on Bradley’s 

motion for new trial. The parties shall file with this Court a status update of the trial court’s 

proceedings within sixty days of this order.

It is so ordered on April 27, 2022.

Before Justices Goodwin, Baker, and Triana

Abated and Remanded

Filed: April 27, 2022
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.12


                       RESTATED INTERCOMPANY NOTE: NORWALK

$40,179,000                                                    February 22, 2000


                  FOR VALUE RECEIVED, NORWALK POWER LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, (the "Borrower"), hereby promises to pay to the order of NRG
NORTHEAST GENERATING LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, its successors
and assigns (the "Lender"), on demand in lawful money of the United States in
immediately available funds, at the office of the Lender located at 1221
Nicollet Mall, Suite 700, Minneapolis, MN 55403, the principal sum of FORTY
MILLION ONE HUNDRED SEVENTY-NINE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($40,179,000) or, if less, the
aggregate unpaid principal amount of the loan remaining outstanding hereunder.

                  The Borrower also promises to pay as interest on the unpaid
principal amount hereof semi-annually on June 15 and December 15 of each year,
beginning on June 15, 2000 in like money at said office from the date hereof
until paid, an amount equal to five and four tenths percent (5.4%) (its
"Proportionate Share") of the interest due in respect of certain bonds issued by
the Issuer pursuant to an indenture entered into by the Issuer, certain
guarantors thereto and the Chase Manhattan Bank, as trustee, of even date
herewith.

                  The Borrower may voluntarily prepay this Note, in whole or in
part provided, however, the Borrower may not prepay more than its Proportionate
Share of the principal amounts set forth in Schedule A hereto before the date
specified on such schedule without the prior written consent of the Lender. The
Lender shall record all such prepayments of principal, and the principal sum due
under this Note shall be reduced accordingly.

                  The Borrower hereby waives presentment, demand, protest or
notice of any kind in connection with this Note. All amounts payable under this
Note are payable without relief from valuation and appraisement laws.


<PAGE>   2


                  This Restated Intercompany Note shall be construed in
accordance with and be governed by the law of the State of New York.

                                            NORWALK POWER LLC

                                            By:   /s/ Brian B. Bird
                                                  ------------------------------
                                                  Name:  Brian B. Bird
                                                  Title: Treasurer


                                        2
Appeal Reinstated and Order filed December 2, 2021

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14 - 19 - 00028 - CR

____________ MARCUS DEWAYNE NICKERSON , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee On Appeal from the 85th District Court Brazos County, Texas Trial Co urt Cause No. 18 - 01753 - CRF - 85



### ORDER Th is appeal was abated pending disposition of appellant ’ s related appeal in cause number 10

- 18

- 00380

- CR in the Tenth Court of Appeals. Appellant’s appeal in case number 10

- 18

- 00158

- CR was denied o n Februar y 17, 2021. On September 22, 2021, the Court of Criminal Appeals denied Appellant’s Petition for Discretionary Review. Mandate in case number 10

- 18

- 00380

- CR issued on November 15, 2021. T he appeal is reinstated
. The S tate ’ s brief is due thirty day s from the date of this order. PER CURIAM Panel Consists of Justices Jewell, Bourliot, and Poissant
.
SERVED: June 25, 2014 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

ABO SUPPLY LLC 

FAA DOCKET NO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

FDMS NO. FAA 2013-0713 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

The Federal Aviation Administration (hereinafter referred to as "Complainant") 

filed a Complaint dated August 5, 2013. ABO Supply, LLC. (hereinafter referred to as 

"Respondent") filed a Request for Hearing dated July 30, 2013. Respondent filed a 

Request to withdraw Request for Hearing/Answer dated June 24, 2014. 

14 C.F.R. § 13.215 states: "At any time before or during a hearing, an agency 

attorney may withdraw a complaint or party may withdraw a request for a hearing 

without the consent of the administrative law judge. If an agency attorney 

withdraws the complaint or a party withdraws the request for a hearing and the 

answer, the administrative law judge shall dismiss the proceedings under this · 

subpart with prejudice." 

WHEREFORE, the within filed Request to Withdraw Request for Hearing having 

been read and considered, it is ORDERED as follows: 

I. Respondent's Request to Withdraw ·Request for Hearing be and is hereby 

granted; and · 

2. This proceeding be and is hereby dismissed with prejudice. 

Richard C. Goodwin . 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Attachment - Service List 
SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl 0001 

Scott L. Johnston, Respondent's Counsel 

Givens & Johnston, PLLC 

950 Echo Lane, Suite 360 

Houston, TX 77024-2788 

TEL: 713-932-1540 

FAX: 713-932-1542 

WATTS: 800-285-8042 

ONE COPY 

EMAIL: sjohnston@givensjohnston.com 

James Archier, Complainant's Counsel 

Attorney, Office ofthe Regional Counsel 

Southwest Region, ASW-7 

Federal Aviation Administration 

2601 Meacham Blvd., Suite 679 

Fort Worth, TX 76137 

TEL: 817-222-5074 

FAX: 817-222-5945/5092 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-5121 Staff Assistant/Paralegal 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

FDMS Nos. FAA-2013.:0713 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2WIOOO, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

2
IN THE LINITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTI{ERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

ANGEL ORTIZ-FLORES

CASE NO.: 3:22-CR-00140-L

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

AI\GEL ORTIZ-FLORES, by consent, under authority of United States v. Dees, 125 F.3d 261 (5th Cir. 1997),

has appeared before me pursuant to Fed. R. Crim.P. I l, and has entered a plea of guilty to Count(s) One of the Indictment,

After cautioning and examining ANGEL ORTIZ-FLORES under oath concerning each of the subjects mentioned in Rule

I l, I determined that the guilty plea was knowledgeable and voluntary and that the offense(s) charged is supported by an

independent basis in fact containing each of the essential elements of such offense. I therefore recommend that the plea of

guilty be accepted, and that ANGEL ORTIZ-FLORES be adjudged guilty of 8 U.S.C. $ 1326(a), namely, Illegal Reentry

After Removal from the United Statefd have sentence imposed accordingly. After being found guilty of the offense by

the dffictjudge, ' .

d The defendant is cunently in custody and should be ordered to remain in custody.

D The defendant must be ordered detained pursuant to 18 U.S.C. $ 3la3(a)(l) unless the Court finds by clear and

convincing evidence that the defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other person or the community

if released.

tl The Govemment does not oppose release.

! The defendant has been compliant with the current conditions of release.

tl I find by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other

person or the community if released and should therefore be released under $ 3142(b) or (c).

n The Govemment opposes release.

n The defendant has not been compliant with the conditions of release.

n If the Court accepts this recommendation, this matter should be set for hearing upon motion of the

Govemment.

The defendant must be ordered detained pursuant to l8 U.S.C. $ 3la3(aX2) unless (l)(a) the Court finds there is a

substantial likelihood that a motion for acquittal or new trial will be granted, or (b) the

recommended that no sentence of imprisonment be imposed, or (c) exceptional circumstances

under g 3las(c) why the defendant should not be detained, and (2) the Court finds by clear and

that the defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any otlErr person or the

(

Date: 5th day of October, 2023

ATES MAGIS TE JUDGE

Failure to file written objections to this Report and Recommendation within fourteen (14) days from the date of its

shall bar an aggrieved party from attacking such Report and Recommendation before the assigned United States District

Judge. 28 U.S.c. $636(bXl)(B).

$

$

$

s

$

n

has

Case 3:22-cr-00140-L Document 37 Filed 10/05/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID 256
March 19, 2013.

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

HENRY JAMES KOHRHAMER, Appellant

NO. 14-12-00814-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________

This cause was heard on the transcripts of the record of the court below, and 

having inspected the record, the Court holds there was no error in the judgment 

requiring reversal, but there was error in the judgment as entered, which is capable 

of reformation by this Court. Therefore, the judgment is REFORMED to delete 

the specific amount of costs assessed.

The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED as REFORMED.

We further order appellant pay all costs expended in the appeal.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
July 1, 2015

Mr. Carl France

Alaska Aerial Services

3875 Geist Road, Suite E #210

Fairbanks, AK 99709

Dear Mr. France :

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from

part 21 and § § 45.23(b), 61.113(a) and (b), 91.7(a), 91.9(b)(2), 91.103, 91.109, 91.119,

91.121, 91.151(a), 91.203(a) and (b), 91.405(a), 407(a)(1), 409(a)(2), an d 417(a) and (b) of

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can n o t Process Your Request

We entered your April 22, 2015

, exemption request on behalf of Alaska Aerial Services into

the public docket (No. FAA− 20 15

− 1202 ), but we are unable to process your request any

further. The information you sent does no t comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy

enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would

benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would no t adversely affect s afety or how the exemption

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you

seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemp tion.2

If We Do No t Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267

- 9677.

Sincerely,

Brenda Robeson

Program Analyst

, Aircraft and

Airport Rules Division

Enclosure