alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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. RP96-320-033]

      ( print page 66980)    
Take notice that on October 30, 2000, Koch Gateway Pipeline Company (Koch) filed with the Commission contracts between Koch and the following companies for disclosure of recently negotiated rate transactions. As shown on the contracts, Koch requests an effective date of November 1, 2000.

Special Negotiated Rate Between Koch Gateway Pipeline and Dynergy Gas Transportation

Koch Gateway Pipeline and Laclede Gas Company

Koch states that it has served copies of this filing upon all parties on the official service list created by the Secretary in this proceeding.

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NW., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). 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. 00-28634  Filed 11-7-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

JOHN DOE,

Plaintiff,

v.

TEXAS CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY,

Defendant.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Civil Action No. 4:22-cv-00297-O

ORDER

Before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion for Entry of Agreed Protective Order (ECF 

No. 85), filed September 16, 2022. The parties move for a protective order “governing the 

exchange and use of discovery and information in this case,” including use of FERPA-protected 

information of non-party Jane Roe. Id. at 1; ECF No. 85-1, Ex. A at 1. While this Court routinely 

declines to use Fed. R. of Civ. P. 26(c) to convert an agreement of the parties into a court order,

1

the Court finds good cause for an exception to that general rule given the highly sensitive nature 

of this case. The Court therefore GRANTS the Motion.

SO ORDERED this 20th day of September, 2022.

1 See Davis v. City of Fort Worth, No. 4:14-cv-491-A, 2014 WL 12940678, at *3, 3 n.3 (N.D. 

Tex. July 3, 2014). 

Case 4:22-cv-00297-O Document 95 Filed 09/20/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 5665
Order entered March 29 , 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 18
- 01068
- CR No. 05
- 18
- 0106 9
- CR ROBERT HOWARD GREEN, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On App eal from the 283rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . F16
- 76425
- T & F16
- 76426
- T



### O RDER Before the Court is the March 27, 2019 request of court reporter Debi Harris for an additional forty

- five days in which to complete the reporter’s record. Rule 35.3 provides that each extension “must not exceed 30 days.” T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 35.3 . However, in light of the extraordinary circumstances presented in her request, we invoke rule 2 and suspend rule 35.3’s operation in this case. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 2. We ORDER the reporter’s record due on or before May 15, 2019.
We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order to the Honorable Lela Lawrence Mays, Presiding Judge, 283rd Judicial District Court; Debi Harris; and to counsel for all parties. /s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III CHIEF JUSTICE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

IN RE THEPETITION OF KAITLIN CROWELL PR 23-0004 

# F1LFD APR 18 2023 Bowen G t,ef 'Wood Cletx of Supreme Court Stota of ..,Anntarin ORDER

Kaitlin Crowell has petitioned this Court for admission to active status in the State Bar ofMontana after havingbeen on inactive status since April 2022. IT IS ORDERED that upon payment of the appropriate fees to the State Bar of Montana, Petitioner shall be admittedto the active practice oflaw in the state ofMontana. The Clerk is directed to provide copies ofthis Order to Petitioner and to the State Bar ofMontana. DATED this / 1

/ 4 4 day ofApril, 2023. For the Court.

ChiefJustice 04/18/2023

Case Number: PR 23-0004
Appointment # 1020102

Booking Name: GUEDESPAGES, HENRY A

Booking Number:

To: Karen Oprea

The Fair Defense Act mandates that court appointed attorneys make contact with their clients within one working day

after appointment. Within three working days after receiving notice of appointment, the attorney shall enter

confirmation that contact has been made into the AMP application.

Status of Case at Time of Appointment:

Booking # Cause #

Asg

Court

Set

Court

Setting

Date

Setting

Time Offense Desc Ind

Dt Cause

Added

C1CR14400141 CC8 N/A N/A ACCIDENT

INVOLVING

DAMAGE TO

VEHICLE>=$200

Yes 6/8/2015

** CONFIRM THIS SETTING WITH THE COURT **

** If a cause does not show a setting, we will notify you of the setting date when it is entered. **

** For Court 4 cases, contact the coordinator to determine if the inmate needs to be brought from the jail.**

Booking Address: AUSTIN,TX,78744,

Booking Phone:

Booking MNI: 1838967

Booking DOB: 2/21/1973

Booking Gender: Male

Arrest Date:

Notes:

 FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 6/8/2015 12:46:01 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
<PAGE>   1
                                                                     EXHIBIT 4.4


                            CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
                                       TO
                          CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
                                       OF
                       ILLINOIS SUPERCONDUCTOR CORPORATION


         ILLINOIS SUPERCONDUCTOR CORPORATION, a corporation organized and
existing under and by virtue of the General Corporation Law of the State of
Delaware (the "Corporation"), does hereby certify:

1.    That, at a meeting held on March 15, 2000 in accordance with Section
      141(b) of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware, the
      Board of Directors of the Corporation adopted a resolution setting
      forth the proposed Amendment to Certificate of Incorporation set forth
      below (the "Amendment"), declaring its advisability, and submitting it
      to the stockholders entitled to vote in respect thereof.

               RESOLVED, that the first sentence of Article 4, Section 4.1 of
      the Certificate of Incorporation, as amended, of the Corporation is
      hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:

               "The total number of shares of all classes of stock which the
               Corporation shall have authority to issue is Two Hundred Fifty
               Million, Three Hundred Thousand (250,300,000), of which Two
               Hundred Fifty Million (250,000,000) shares are of a class
               designated "Common Stock" (referred to in this certificate as
               "Common"), and Three Hundred Thousand (300,000) shares are of
               a class designated "Preferred Stock" (referred to in this
               certificate as "Preferred") all with a par value of $.001."

2.    That, an annual meeting of stockholders was duly called and held on
      July 18, 2000, upon written notice in accordance with Section 222 of
      the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware, at which meeting
      the holders of a majority of the outstanding stock entitled to vote
      thereon, and a majority of the outstanding stock of each class entitled
      to vote thereon as a class, voted in favor of the adoption of the
      Amendment.

3.    That the  Amendment has been duly adopted in accordance with Section 242
      of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Corporation has caused this Certificate of
  Amendment to Certificate of Incorporation to be signed by its Chief Executive
  Officer and attested by its Secretary, all on July 18, 2000.

                       ILLINOIS SUPERCONDUCTOR CORPORATION



                       By:   GEORGE CALHOUN
                          ----------------------------------------
                             George C. Calhoun
                             Chief Executive Officer



         CYNTHIA QUIGLEY
------------------------------------
          Cynthia Quigley
          Secretary
Exhibit 21

Omega Protein Corporation owns 100% of the common stock of:



| |  |  | Protein Finance Company, a Delaware corporation
| | - |  | -----------------------------------------------



| |  |  | Omega International Distribution Company, a Delaware corporation (formerly named Omega Net, Inc.)
| | - |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | Omega Shipyard, Inc., a Delaware corporation
| | - |  | --------------------------------------------



| |  |  | Protein Industries, Inc., a Delaware corporation
| | - |  | ------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | Zapata Inversiones Chile, a Chilean corporation (inactive)
| | - |  | ----------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | Omega Protein, Inc., a Virginia corporation
| | - |  | -------------------------------------------



| |  |  | Owns 1% of the equity of Omega Protein Mexico S. de R. L. de C.V., a Mexican corporation (Omega Protein Mexico)
| | - |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | Omega International Marketing Company, a Delaware corporation
| | - |  | -------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | Owns 99% of the equity of Omega Protein Mexico
| | - |  | ----------------------------------------------
#### STATE OF CONNECTICUT *v.*DANIEL CLARK

*Richard Emanuel,*in support of the petition.

*Christopher T. Godialis,*assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.

Decided July 8, 1998

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 48 Conn. App. 812 (AC 15715), is denied.

BERDON and NORCOTT, Js, did not participate in the consideration or decision of this petition.
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-30157 Summary Calendar

__________________ MELVIN WASHINGTON, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus ROBERT J. BARNES, Doctor, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Milddle District of Louisiana

USDC No. 94-CV-1706

- - - - - - - - - - (May 23, 1995) Before KING, JOLLY and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Melvin Washington's motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal from the district court's judgment dismissing his civil rights action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) is DENIED. Washington has not provided a factual basis to support his allegations that prison officials retaliated against him for exercising his right of access to the courts or to complain of official misconduct. See Gibbs v. King , 779 F.2d 1040, 1046 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 476 U.S. 1117 (1986); Whittington v.No. 95-30157 -2-
Lynaugh , 842 F.2d 818, 819 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 488 U.S. 840 (1988). On appeal, Washington can present no legal points arguable on their merits, and the appeal is frivolous. See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. Rule 42.2.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

Plaintiff

Defendant

v.

Civil Action No.

CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS',6&/2685(67$7(0(17

(This form also satisfies Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1)

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1 and LR 3.1(c), LR 3.2(e), LR 7.4, LR 81.1(a)(4)(D), and LR 81.2,

provides the following information:

For a nongovernmental corporate party, the name(s) of its parent corporation and any 

publicly held corporation that owns 10% or more of its stock (if none, state "None"): 

*Please separate names with a comma. Only text visible within box will print.

A complete list of all persons, associations of persons, firms, partnerships, corporations, 

guarantors, insurers, affiliates, parent or subsidiary corporations, or other legal entities that are 

financially interested in the outcome of the case: 

*Please separate names with a comma. Only text visible within box will print.

The State of Texas

Alejandro Mayorkas et al.

2:22-cv-94

The State of Texas

N/A

N/A

Case 2:22-cv-00094-Z Document 2 Filed 04/28/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 24
Date:

Signature:

Print Name:

Telephone:

Address:

City, State, Zip:

Bar Number:

Fax:

E-Mail:

NOTE: To electronically file this document, you will find the event in our Case Management (CM/ECF) system, under Civil !Other 

Documents !Certificate of Interested Persons'LVFORVXUH6WDWHPHQW

April 28, 2022

/s/ Christopher D. Hilton

Christopher D. Hilton

24087727

P.O. Box 12548

Austin, Texas 78711-2548

(512) 936-1700

christopher.hilton@oag.texas.gov

Case 2:22-cv-00094-Z Document 2 Filed 04/28/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 25
#### ELTON v. STATE.

No. 26040.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 19, 1952.

Croslin & Pharr, by E. G. Pharr, Lubbock, for appellant.

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

DAVIDSON, Commissioner.

Appellant has been assessed the maximum penalty of a fine of $2,000 and two years in jail as a second offender, Art. 61, P.C., for violating the liquor laws of this state.

It is insisted that the information does not authorize the judgment.

Count one of -the information alleges the possession for the, purpose of sale of whisky and beer in Hockley County, a dry area, on or about March 27, 1952. This count is valid, and not subject to attack.

The second count charges, in effect, that appellant had been convicted on September 21, 1951, in 'Cause No. 15339 in the'County Court of Lubbock County, Texas, of an offense of like character, to-wit: possessing whisky and gin for the purpose of sale in a dry area.

The claimed defect in this count is that on said date the County Court of Lubbock County, Texas, did not have jurisdiction to try criminal cases, and, therefore, any judgment rendered by that court in a criminal case on the date alleged would be void for the want of jurisdiction.

By Chap. 16, Acts of the 1st Called Session of the 51st Legislature, in 1950, and appearing as Art. 1970-340, Vernon’s R.C. S., effective March 11, 1950, the' legislature of this state created what was to be known as the County 'Court of Lubbock County at Law, with criminal jurisdiction of all offenses accorded to county courts, under the general laws of this state.

The County Court of Lubbock County, Texas, was not abolished by the act, but the jurisdiction thereof was expressly curtailed and limited to probate and juvenile matters.

So, then, we have two separate and distinct county courts in Lubbock County, each operating within its respective jurisdiction and under its respective name and designation.

There 'is no escape from the conclusion, therefore, that in alleging that the prior conviction occurred in the County Court of Lubbock County, the state relied upon a judgment rendered by a court without jurisdiction to render that judgment. The judgment of a court without jurisdiction is a nullity, and is void.

What conclusion, then, should this court reach, under the circumstances stated? Should we say that the state meant and intended to allege that the prior con*701viction occurred in the County 'Court at Law of Lubbock County, Texas, and that, by such process of reasoning, this court should change the information to so read? If we were to do so, we would then write for the state the information in this case. Obviously, we have no power or authority to do so.

Moreover, the presumption attains that the evidence supported the allegations of the information. There is nothing before this court to the contrary.

In its final analysis, then, the only construction to be given to this record is that appellant’s punishment has been enhanced by reason of a prior void judgment of conviction.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Opinion approved by the court.
#### GARZA v. GARZA.

No. 11966.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

Oct. 12, 1949.

L. R. Cowen, Brownsville, for appellant.

Fred Kowalski, Brownsville, for appel-lee.

W. O. MURRAY, Justice.

This is a trespass to try title suit instituted by Jose Quintanilla Garza against Bruno Garza, seeking to recover the title and possession of Lot No. 18 in Block 5, in the Colonia Alta Vista, an addition to the City of Brownsville, Cameron County, Texas.

The defendant did not appear and judgment as prayed for was rendered by default in favor of Jose Quintanilla Garza. Bruno Garza has prosecuted this appeal by way of writ of error.

The citation served upon Bruno Garza was fatally defective and therefore will not support a judgment by default. The citation recited that plaintiff’s petition was filed on the 19 day of Oct., 194— This is an impossible date, rendering the citation fatally defective. Rule 101 and Rule 799, Texas Rules Civil Procedure; Sypert v. Rogers Lumber Co., Tex.Civ.App., 201 S.W. 1102; Leavitte v. Brazelton, 28 Tex.Civ.App. 3, 66 S.W. 465; National Ben Franklin Fire Insurance Company v. Scott, Tex.Civ.App., 214 S.W. 604; Wise v. Southern Rock Island Plow Company, Tex.Civ.App., 85 S.W.2d 257.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

SMITH, C. J., absent.
#### COURSON v. STATE.

No. 21789.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 10, 1941.

Ramey A. Smith, of Sulphur Springs, for ■appellant.

Spurgeon E. Bell, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

Passing a forged instrument is the offense; the punishment, two years in the state penitentiary.

No bills of exception accompany the record. The only question presented is the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction.

The State’s testimony shows that the ap-pellant passed as true, to James Brittain, ■a forged check in the sum of thirteen dollars, in part payment of merchandise, receiving the balance in cash. When questioned relative the check, appellant claimed that it had been given him by the alleged maker, in payment for a cow. The day following the transaction, appellant fled from this state to the state of California, where he was apprehended and brought back for trial.

Appellant did not testify as a witness in his own behalf, nor did he present any affirmative defense.

The facts are sufficient to support the conviction.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
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 Health and Human Services

###### Administration for Children and Families

# AGENCY:

Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, ACF, DHHS.

# ACTION:

Award announcement. 

# SUMMARY:

Notice is hereby given that a noncompetitive grant award is being made to the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy to develop a fifty-state survey of teen pregnancy prevention. This survey will also include three to four case studies of individual state efforts.

This 17-month project is being funded noncompetitively, because it is expected to provide valuable information useful to this Department and other practitioners regarding progress and state/community efforts to prevent teen pregnancy. The National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy is uniquely qualified to conduct the study because of its considerable experience and access to resources. The total cost of the project is $150,496.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nancye Campbell, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW., Washington, DC 20447, Phone: 202-401-5760.

Dated: November 2, 2000.

Howard Rolston,

Director, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation.

[FR Doc. 00-28818  Filed 11-8-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4184-01-M