alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

MICHAEL ACOSTA,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 199 EAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

MICHAEL ACOSTA,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 200 EAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

MICHAEL ACOSTA,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 201 EAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 25th day of October, 2023

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
EX-10.34



 






Exhibit 10.34




NRG Energy, Inc.




Named Executive Officer 2005 AIP Payout and 2006 Base Salary Table




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	2005 Annual Incentive	 	 
	Name	 	Title	 	Plan Payout	 	2006 Base Salary
	David Crane	 	President, Chief Executive Officer and Director
	 	$	1,252,435	 	 	$	1,000,000	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Robert C. Flexon	 	Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
	 	$	488,000	 	 	$	475,000	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Kevin T. Howell	 	Executive Vice President, Commercial Operations
	 	$	250,000	 	 	$	380,000	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	John P. Brewster	 	Executive Vice President, International Operations and President, South Central Region
	 	$	225,000	 	 	$	320,000	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Christine A. Jacobs	 	Vice President, Plant Operations
	 	$	210,000	 	 	$	310,000
#### COPELAND v. STATE.

No. 25379.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 27, 1951.

No attorney on appeal, for appellant.

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

WOODLEY, Commissioner.

The conviction is for the possession of beer for the purpose of sale in a dry area, the punishment assessed by the jury being a fine of $100.

It is shown that appellant, after giving notice of appeal, failed to enter into a recognizance and escaped from the custody of the sheriff.

The State’s motion to dismiss the appeal is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.

Opinion approved by the Court. .
Motion GRANTED and Order filed June 22, 2018. 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-18-00466-CV

____________

IN RE EDWARD ALEXANDER, ADAM JOHNSON, WAYNE 

THOMPSON, JR., LILYNN CUTRER, AND KAREN AUCOIN,

INDIVIDUALLY AND AS CO-TRUSTEES, Relators

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

Probate Court No. 4

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. 365,053 & 365,053-404

ORDER

June 7, 2018, relators Edward Alexander, Adam Johnson, Wayne Thompson, 

Jr., Lilynn Cutrer; and Karen Aucoin, Individually and as Co-Trustees, filed a 

petition for writ of mandamus in this court. Relators ask this court to order the 
Honorable Christine Butts, Judge of the Probate Court No. 4, in Harris County, 

Texas, to set aside her order dated June 5, 2018, entered in trial court numbers 

365,053 & 365,053-404, styled Preston Marshall v. Elaine T. Marshall, et al.

Relators claim respondent abused her discretion by ordering them to produce 

documents, which they assert are protected by the attorney-client and work product 

privileges.

Relators also filed a motion for temporary stay of proceedings below. See 

Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(b), 52.10. Relators ask this court to stay the June 5, 2018 order 

pending a decision on the petition for writ of mandamus.

It appears from the facts stated in the petition and motion that relators’ request 

for relief requires further consideration and that relators will be prejudiced unless 

immediate temporary relief is granted. We therefore GRANT relators’ motion and 

issue the following order:

We ORDER the June 5, 2018 order in trial court cause numbers 365,053 & 

365-053-404, Preston Marshall v. Elaine T. Marshall, et al., STAYED until a final 

decision by this court on relators’ petition for writ of mandamus, or until further 

order of this court.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jamison, Wise, and Jewell.
Exhibit 11


                           THE STRIDE RITE CORPORATION
                        COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                      (In Thousands except Per Share Data)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                      Three Months Ended       Six Months Ended
                                       May 30,    May 31,    May 30,    May 31,
                                        1997      1996       1997       1996
                                      --------    -------    -------    --------
Net income applicable to common
<S>                                   <C>         <C>        <C>        <C>
shares                                $ 7,077     $ 3,012    $11,197    $ 4,390

Calculation of shares:

   Weighted average number of
     common shares outstanding         48,775      49,589     49,184     49,568

   Common shares  attributable to assumed exercise of dilutive stock options and
     stock purchase rights using the
     treasury stock method                610         281        614        259


Average common shares and common
  equivalents outstanding during
  the period                           49,385      49,870     49,798     49,827



Net income per common share           $   .14      $  .06    $   .22      $ .09
</TABLE>





















                                      17

<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 31.1
 
 I, R. David Russell, certify that:
 
 1. I have reviewed this amended quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of Apollo Gold Corporation for the period ended September 30, 2004;
 
 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
 
 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
 
 4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 
 a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
 
 b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
 
 c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
 
 5.The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 
 a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
 
 b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.
  ****Date: January 20, 2005
By:
/s/ R. David RussellR. David Russell,Chief Executive Officer
#### HOWELL v. STATE.

No. 25342.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 13, 1951.

*780Chas. Nordyke, Stephenville, for appellant.

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

BEAUCHAMP, Judge-.

This is an appeal from a conviction for driving on a public highway while intoxicated, with a fine of $50.00.

Appellant was seen by officers on a highway nine miles north of Stephen-ville, while driving a pickup. The officers thought he was driving too fast and turned to follow him. They gave chase and finally overtook him as he pulled into a service station near the town of Dublin. Their testimony as to his intoxicated condition was sufficient to sustain the verdict of guilt.

The appeal is predicated on two bills of exception. Bill No. 1 shows that the prosecution asked one of the officers whether or not it was necessary to use force in making the arrest. The officer replied, “It definitely was necessary.” The statement of facts discloses that the officer had detailed without objection the manner of his handling -the appellant and the difficulty that he had in putting him in the officers’ car to take him to jail. The question objected to then follows. We are unable to understand appellant’s claim of error and we find no harmful results from this question and answer.

The second bill of exception complains that in his closing statement as a witness in his own behalf, the -appellant was asked where he had been “those five years”. His answer was, “I was in the Army.” The court sustained the state’s objection and excluded the testimony. We fail to understand the value of this evidence to appellant, or the purpose in asking the question. Where he was in -the previous five years could have no bearing on the question at issue.

Finding no reversible error, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

ANGELA COLMENERO, in her official 

capacity as Provisional Attorney General of 

Texas, DAVID SCHNITZ, TRACY 

MARTIN, and FLOICE ALLEN

Plaintiffs,

v.

STEVEN M. DETTELBACH, in his

Official Capacity as Director, Bureau

of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and

Explosives, and MERRICK B.

GARLAND, in his Official Capacity as

Attorney General of the United States, 

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Civil Action No. 4:22-cv-0143-P

PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF APPEAL TO THE

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

Notice is hereby given that the Plaintiffs, Angela Colmenero, Provisional Attorney General 

of Texas, David Schnitz, Tracy Martin, and Floice Allen, appeal to the United States Court of 

Appeals for the Fifth Circuit from the Opinion and Order granting Defendant’s Motion for 

Summary Judgment and denying Plaintiff’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, entered on the 

docket of this case on July 18, 2023 (Dkt. 64).

Case 4:22-cv-00143-P Document 66 Filed 08/04/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID 1096
2

Respectfully submitted,

ANGELA COLMENERO /s/ Tony K. McDonald

Provisional Attorney General of Texas TONY K. MCDONALD

State Bar No. 24083477

BRENT WEBSTER

First Assistant Attorney General THE LAW OFFICES OF TONY MCDONALD

1501 Leander Dr., Suite B2

GRANT DORFMAN Leander, Texas 78641

Deputy First Assistant Attorney General (512) 200-3608 • fax (815) 550-1292

tony@tonymcdonald.com

RALPH MOLINA

Deputy Attorney General for Legal Strategy WARREN V. NORRED

State Bar No. 24045094

/s/ Charles K. Eldred

CHARLES K. ELDRED NORRED LAW, PLLC

Special Counsel for Legal Strategy 515 E. Border Street

State Bar No. 00793681 Arlington, Texas 76010

(817) 704-3984 • fax (817) 524-6686

JOHNATHAN STONE warren@norredlaw.com

Assistant Attorney General

General Litigation Division

State Bar No. 24071779

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS

P. O. Box 12548

Austin, Texas 78711-2548

(512) 936-1706 • fax (512) 320-0167

charles.eldred@oag.texas.gov

Attorneys for Angela Colmenero, Attorneys for David Schnitz,

Provisional Attorney General of Texas Tracy Martin, and Floice Allen

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

We certify that a true and accurate copy of the foregoing document was filed electronically 

(via CM/ECF) on August 4 2023.

/s/ Charles K. Eldred /s/ Tony K. McDonald

Charles K. Eldred Tony K. McDonald

Case 4:22-cv-00143-P Document 66 Filed 08/04/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID 1097
EXHIBIT 10.5

                                 Promissory Note

                                 PROMISSORY NOTE


Borrower:  Sew Cal Logo, Inc.                  Lender:  Richard & Judy Songer
           207  West  138th  St.                        301 Camino Bravado
           Los Angeles, CA   90061                      San Clemente, CA  92673


Effective Date: March 1, 2006             Due Date: March 1, 2007
Amount:  $355,384.30                      Interest Rate: 10% Fixed Rate - Simple
                                            Interest

SEW CAL LOGO, INC., referred to herein as "BORROWER", agrees to pay to the order
of  RICHARD  and  JUDY  SONGER,  referred  to  herein  as  "LENDER",  the sum of
$355,384.30  (THREE  HUNDRED  FIFTY-FIVE  THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED EIGHTY FOUR AND
THIRTY/ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS) at Los Angeles, California on March 1, 2004, with an
interest  thereon at a rate of 10% per annum-  Fixed Rate  calculated  as simple
interest, beginning March 1, 2004.

This note is payable in U.S. Dollars and is  collateralized by the assets of the
company,  including  but not  limited  to:  any and all  equipment  owned by the
company, inventory, and outstanding receivables. This note shall be subordinated
by any balance due on unpaid notes,  including any provisions therein, to United
Commercial Bank, 199 S. Los Robles Ave.,  Suite 580,  Pasadena,  CA 91101.  Upon
payment in full of said notes to United  Commercial  Bank, all accrued  interest
and the principal  amount shall become due and payable  immediately upon demand,
regardless of maturity date.

This note may be extended at the same interest  rate upon  agreement of both the
BORROWER and the LENDER.  Any such  extension  will be in keeping with the exact
maturity  dates of notes  with  United  Commercial  Bank and any  extensions  or
revisions granted on their behalf with all subordination remaining in full force
until such notes are satisfied in full.

Should  BORROWER  default for any reason,  BORROWER agrees to pay any reasonable
legal fees for any and all services of an attorney,  whether in or out of court,
and for appeal and post judgement  legal  services,  incurred in collecting this
debt.


Sew Cal Logo, Inc.


/s/ Richard Songer
----------------------------------------
    Richard Songer, its President
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

MORESIA BROWN HAMILTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR 

GENERAL, ET AL.,

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Civil Action No. 3:22-CV-0649-X-BH

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. [Doc. 36]. Plaintiff Moresia Brown Hamilton sued 

her former employer, the Texas Office of Inspector General, her former supervisor, 

and the current Inspector General for Texas Health and Human Services, alleging 

discrimination, wrongful termination, breach of contract, and intentional infliction of 

emotional distress. The Magistrate Judge concluded that Hamilton failed to 

exhaust her administrative remedies before filing suit and accordingly recommends 

that the Court dismiss without prejudice Hamilton’s Title VII claims. Further, the 

Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court decline to exercise supplemental 

jurisdiction over Hamilton’s state-law claims and, accordingly, dismiss without 

prejudice those claims as well.

Hamilton filed two objections. [Docs. 37 & 38]. Liberally construed, the first 

Case 3:22-cv-00649-X-BH Document 39 Filed 07/17/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID 174
2

appears to argue that the Magistrate Judge failed to follow proper procedure or act 

ethically. It then appears to reiterate Hamilton’s original arguments from her 

complaint. The second objection states that Hamilton is “being used for 

experiment[ation]” by the Federal Aviation Administration, which “is allowing 

airplane[s] to hov[er] over the bridge shelter[,] shocking [her] body on a daily basi[s].”1 

It further notes that Hamilton is unable to access a portal to obtain retirement 

benefits from her previous employment, as well as other benefits.

Neither objection addresses the Magistrate Judge’s finding that Hamilton 

failed to exhaust her administrative remedies before filing suit, and neither objection 

argues that the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Hamilton’s 

state-law claims. Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES Hamilton’s objections.

The District Court reviewed de novo those portions of the proposed findings, 

conclusions, and recommendation to which objection was made, and reviewed the 

remaining proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation for plain error. 

Finding none, the Court ACCEPTS the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation 

of the United States Magistrate Judge. The Court DISMISSES WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE Hamilton’s claims.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 17th day of July, 2023.

____________________________________

BRANTLEY STARR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1 Doc. 38 at 2.

Case 3:22-cv-00649-X-BH Document 39 Filed 07/17/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID 175
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         396,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                5,887,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   675,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,923,000
<PP&E>                                      22,351,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              10,089,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              20,752,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       16,064,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                 16,433,000
<COMMON>                                       320,000
<OTHER-SE>                                (17,078,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                20,752,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            14,825,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               10,366,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             8,932,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             720,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (5,193,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (5,193,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (5,193,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.20)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.20)


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 213 (Thursday, November 2, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 65887]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-28122]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. 50-328]


Tennessee Valley Authority; Notice of Withdrawal of Application 
for Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) has granted 
the request of Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) to withdraw its June 7, 
1999, application for proposed amendments to Facility Operating 
Licenses No. DPR-79 for the Sequoyah Nuclear Plant (SQN), Unit 2, 
located in Hamilton County, Tennessee. Notice of Consideration of 
Issuance of of this amendment was published in the Federal Register on 
July 28, 1999, (64 FR 40907).
    The purpose of the licensee's amendment request was to revise the 
Technical Specifications (TS) to increase the maximum allowed specific 
activity of the primary (reactor) coolant from 0.35 microcuries/gram 
dose equivalent Iodine-131 (I-131) to 1.0 microcuries/gram dose 
equivalent I-131 for the Unit 2 Cycle 10 core. The change for Unit 2 
back to 1.0 microcuries/gram (the previous TS limit) was to have been a 
provisional allowance to provide operational flexibility with respect 
to the reactor coolant specific activity because an unexpected increase 
in the specific activity associated with I-131 occurred during startup 
following the previous refueling outage due presumably to minor fuel 
clad leakage.
    By letter dated October 17, 2000, TVA withdrew the proposed change 
on the basis that reactor coolant dose equivalent I-131 activity had 
not closely approached the current TS limit and was not expected to 
before the refueling outage that commenced on October 22, 2000.
    For further details with respect to this action, see the 
application for amendments dated August 30, 1999, and TVA's letter 
dated October 17, 2000, which withdrew the application for the license 
amendment.
    These Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the 
Commission's Public Document room, located at One White Flint North, 
11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland, and accessible 
electronically through the ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room link at 
the NRC Web site (http://www.nrc.gov).

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 26th day of October 2000.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Ronald W. Hernan,
Senior Project Manager, Section 2, Project Directorate II, Division of 
Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 00-28122 Filed 11-1-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-1-P
Case 1:22-cr-00022-H-BU Document 43 Filed 10/13/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 83
Case 1:22-cr-00022-H-BU Document 43 Filed 10/13/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 84
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

The Board of Directors
RAVISENT Technologies Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No. 333-
94417) on Form S-8 of RAVISENT Technologies Inc. of our reports dated March 8,
2000, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of RAVISENT Technologies Inc.
and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1999 and 1998, and the related consolidated
statements of operations, changes in stockholders' equity (deficiency), and cash
flows and related financial statement schedule for each of the years in the
three-year period ended December 31, 1999, which reports appear in the December
31, 1999 annual report on Form 10-K of RAVISENT Technologies Inc.

KPMG LLP

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
March 29, 2000