alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Johh R. Morron, Deceased.

Surrogate’s Court, New York County,

December 4, 1957.

*Cahill, Gordon, Reindel & Ohl*for Lowell R. Burch and others, as trustees, petitioners.

*Cornelius W. Wickersham*and *Carlton G. Champe*for Lowell R. Burch and others, respondents.

*Arthur N. Field,*as special guardian for William D. Symmes and others, infants, respondents.

Joseph A. Cox, S.

In this trustees’ accounting a question is presented as to the allocation of three stock dividends.

The will was executed on April 13, 1948 with a codicil thereto executed on March 8, 1949 so that section 17-a of the Personal Property Law applies. That section requires that the stock dividends be treated as principal unless otherwise provided in the will.

The will does otherwise provide for the fifth paragraph of article “ Eleventh ” reads: '‘ I authorize my Trustees to treat all stock dividends and extraordinary cash dividends as income regardless of the fact that such dividends might possibly *862encroach upon the principal of the trust. If in their discretion they apportion the same between principal and income, their decision in the exercise of such discretion shall be absolutely controlling on all concerned. My Trustees shall not be required to set apart any part of income as a sinking fund to absorb the premium on any securities purchased or placed in the trust funds.”

A reading of the language in the will makes it unnecessary to determine whether the distributions were true stock dividends or whether they were payable in part out of the unearned capital of the corporations in question. The trustees are authorized to treat the stock dividends as income whether they encroached upon the principal or not.

In view of the broad discretion granted *to the*trustees by the will, it is evident that the testator desired that the trustees should be free to make such allocation of the stock dividends in question as their judgment and discretion prompted. The trustees alone were given the discretion and they must exercise it in good faith. They are fully authorized to allocate between principal and income all the distributions in question in any such proportion as they see fit.

Submit decree on notice settling the accounts accordingly.
United States District Court 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

DALLAS DIVISION 

WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND 

SOCIETY, FSB, NOT IN ITS 

INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY BUT 

SOLELY IN ITS CAPACITY AS 

OWNER TRUSTEE FOR CASCADE 

FUNDING MORTGAGE TRUST 

2018-RM1 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:22-CV-0735-S-BN 

Vv. 

CO COR COR 8G? CO? GOD G07 LO? 60? 60? 6G? 

B.B. BARR and VINIDA BARR 

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. No objections were filed. The Court reviewed the proposed findings, conclusions, and 

recommendation for plain error. Finding none, the Court ACCEPTS the Findings, Conclusions, 

and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge to the extent that the Court denies the 

request for attorney’s fees in Plaintiff Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, not in its individual 

capacity but solely as Owner Trustee for Cascade Funding Mortgage Trust 2018-RM1’s Motion 

for Attorney’s Fees [ECF No. 40] and denies Defendants B.B. Barr and Vinida Barr’s Motion for 

New Trial [ECF No. 41]. 

However, with respect to the request for costs in Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney’s Fees, 

the Court notes that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(2)(B)(i) does not apply to requests for 

costs. Therefore, solely as to the request for costs, the Court ACCEPTS the alternate 

recommendation in the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation and awards Plaintiff $402.00 

in recoverable costs. The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to file a bill of costs seeking only this amount 

by no later than September 16, 2024. 

Case 3:22-cv-00735-S-BN Document 47 Filed 09/09/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID 465
SO ORDERED. 

SIGNED September 9, 2024. S chy Qh 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 3:22-cv-00735-S-BN Document 47 Filed 09/09/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID 466
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 222 (Thursday, November 16, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 69298]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-29343]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP01-83-000]


Seagull Marketing Services, Inc., Complainant, v. Columbia Gulf 
Transmission Company, Respondent; Notice of Complaint

November 9, 2000.
    Take notice that on November 8, 2000, pursuant to Sections 5, 7, 
and 16 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), 15 U.S.C. 717d, 717f, and 717o, 
and Rule 206 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 
CFR 385.206, Seagull Marketing Services, Inc. (Seagull) tendered for 
filing a complaint against Columbia Gulf Transmission Company (Columbia 
Gulf). Seagull has requested Fast Track processing under 18 CFR 
385.206(h).
    Seagull alleges that Columbia Gulf has used an inappropriate cash-
out price for imbalance volumes and improperly assessed imbalance 
penalties against Seagull that are in violation of Sections 5 and 7 of 
the NGA, Part 284 of the Commission's regulations, operative provisions 
of the currently effective Columbia Gulf Tariff (Tariff), and 
Commission policy and precedent.
    Seagull requests Fast Track processing under 18 CFR 385.206(h) 
because of the threat of additional monthly imbalance penalties. To the 
extent that Fast Track procedures do not apply, Seagull asks the 
Commission to issue an immediate stay of any further assessment by 
Columbia Gulf of monthly imbalance penalties pending a disposition on 
the merits of this complaint.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest this filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulation 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 or 
protests must be filed on or before November 28, 2000. 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 
proceeding. 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 also be viewed on the Internet at 
http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222) for 
assistance. Answers to the complaint shall also be due on or before 
November 28, 2000.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-29343 Filed 11-15-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

DALLAS DIVISION 

DARRELL BILLINGSLEA, § 

TDCJ No. 1588458, § 

 § 

Plaintiff, § 

§ 

V. § No. 3:22-cv-622-M-BN 

§ 

MARIAN BROWN and KOBBY § 

WARREN, § 

§ 

Defendants. § 

SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION 

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Plaintiff Darrell Billingslea, a Texas prisoner, filed a pro se civil rights 

complaint against his former defense counsel and the Dallas County Sheriff, raising 

claims concerning a state conviction that he contends is wrongful, but which has yet 

to be declared invalid. See Dkt. No. 3. Chief Judge Barbara M. G. Lynn referred this 

case to the undersigned United States magistrate judge for pretrial management 

under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and a standing order of reference. And, on March 30, 2022, 

the undersigned entered findings of fact and conclusions of law recommending that 

the Court dismiss Billingslea’s lawsuit without prejudice because his civil claims are 

currently subject to the rule announced in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) 

[Dkt. No. 6] (the Initial FCR). 

Billingslea has now filed his one amended complaint as a matter of course. See

Dkt. No. 7. While it is unclear whether Billingslea reviewed the Initial FCR prior to 

filing the amended complaint, his amended allegations, like his initial allegations, 

Case 3:22-cv-00622-M-BN Document 8 Filed 04/08/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 29
- 2 - 

reflect that his claims are subject to the rule announced in Heck. And the Court 

should dismiss this case without prejudice for the reasons set out in the Initial FCR. 

Recommendation

The Court should dismiss this action without prejudice, as Plaintiff Darrell 

Billingslea’s civil claims are currently subject to the rule announced in Heck. 

To be set by separate order, a copy of these findings, conclusions, and 

recommendation shall be served on all parties in the manner provided by law. Any 

party who objects to any part of these findings, conclusions, and recommendation 

must file specific written objections within 14 days after being served with a copy. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b). In order to be specific, an objection 

must identify the specific finding or recommendation to which objection is made, state 

the basis for the objection, and specify the place in the magistrate judge’s findings, 

conclusions, and recommendation where the disputed determination is found. An 

objection that merely incorporates by reference or refers to the briefing before the 

magistrate judge is not specific. Failure to file specific written objections will bar the 

aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings and legal conclusions of the 

magistrate judge that are accepted or adopted by the district court, except upon 

grounds of plain error. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 

(5th Cir. 1996). 

DATED: April 8, 2022 

 _________________________________________ 

 DAVID L. HORAN 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 3:22-cv-00622-M-BN Document 8 Filed 04/08/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 30
** **

**Exhibit10.3**

 

**[LOGO] IMAGEWARE SYSTEMS, INC.**

 

 

March 30, 2004

 

Offerof Restricted Stock in Exchange for Certain Stock Options Previously Granted

 

OfferMade to Wayne Wetherell

 

ImageWare’s Board has authorized managementto offer you the ability to receive restricted stock in consideration under the2001 Equity Incentive Plan in exchange for certain out of the money optionswhich had been previously granted to you under various option plans.

 

This proposal will not only provide you withwhat can be considered greater equity incentives, it also results in increasedoption pools for future grants to all employees.

 

Attached is a spreadsheet which summarizesthe proposed option surrender / restricted stock grant.

 

Based upon an exchange ratio of three shares ofrestricted stock for five options, 80,281 shares of restricted stock would begranted out of the 2001 plan in exchange for the surrender of options covering 133,801shares (from the 2001, 1999 and 1994 plans) with a net of 53,520 of thoseoptions going back into the option pool for future grants to employees.

 

The restricted stock will vest over threeyears on a quarterly basis (one twelfth per quarter) and will fully vest uponany of the following:

 

•                  a change in control,

•                  the sale of the company,

•                  termination of employmentunless such termination was for cause.

 

By vesting in small increments on a quarterlybasis, you will be able to plan and time tax implications (ordinary income onthe entire value of vested stock on the date it vests).  Certificates will be issued to you quarterlyas they vest (or upon the occurrence of one of the events listed above).  The shares will be fully registered whenissued.

 

Please indicate your agreement to accept theoffer presented above by signing below where indicated.  Return the signed original along with the originaloption grants covering the options being exchanged.

 

 
| /s/  Patrick J. Downs                                                                                |   |            |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|-----------------|
| Patrick Downs   Member of Board of Directors and  Compensation Committee Chairman  Imageware Systems, Inc |   | Wayne Wetherell |
|                                                                                                      |   |            |

 

 

----
III

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 35

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER 7 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 12), 1994

Received

OCTOBER 8 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 12), 1994

Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Recognizing Belleville, New Jersey, as the birthplace of the

industrial revolution in the United States.

Whereas, in 1753, Josiah Hornblower, an English engineer

who was an associate and rival of James Watt, assembled

the 1st functioning steam engine in the Western Hemisphere in Belleville, New Jersey, to pump water from the

Schuyler copper mines;

Whereas, approximately 40 years after such assembly, the 1st

steam engine made in the United States was manufactured in a foundry in Belleville from designs by Josiah

Hornblower;
2

HCON 35 RFS

Whereas the designs were commissioned by Nicholas Roosevelt, who was the great-uncle of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Theodore Roosevelt, to power the Polacca,

which was the 1st experimental steamboat in the United

States;

Whereas the Polacca negotiated the Passaic River on October

21, 1798, which was several years before Robert Fulton’s

boat, Clermont, sailed the Hudson River;

Whereas historians herald the invention of the steam engine

as the beginning of the industrial revolution;

Whereas the presence of Josiah Hornblower in Belleville

brought many of the initiators of the industrial revolution

in the United States to Belleville;

Whereas such individuals included members of the Rutgers

family, many of whom are buried in the cemetery of the

old Dutch Reformed Church in Belleville; and

Whereas Belleville has a rightful claim to the title ‘‘Birthplace of the American Industrial Revolution’’: Now,

therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That—

3 (1) the Congress recognizes Belleville, New Jer4 sey, as the birthplace of the industrial revolution in

5 the United States; and
3

HCON 35 RFS

1 (2) the President is authorized and requested to

2 issue a proclamation honoring Belleville as such

3 birthplace.

Passed the House of Representatives October 7,

1994.

Attest: DONNALD K. ANDERSON,

Clerk.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

CATHERINE CONTRERAS-BELTRAN, § 

 #57313-177, § 

PETITIONER, § 

 § 

V. § CIVIL CASE NO. 3:22-CV-1019-N-BK 

 § 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, § 

 RESPONDENT. § 

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. No objections were filed. The court reviewed the proposed findings, conclusions, and 

recommendation for plain error. Finding none, the court ACCEPTS the Findings, Conclusions, 

and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. 

SO ORDERED this 20th day of March, 2023. 

____________________________________ 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 3:22-cv-01019-N-BK Document 19 Filed 03/20/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID 153
#### JONES v. STATE.

No. 26042.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 19, 1952.

No attorney on appeal.

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

DAVIDSON, Commissioner.

The unlawful sale of whisky in a dry area is the offense; the punishment, a fine of $300.

The record before us does not contain a statement of facts or bills of exception. Nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the court
IV

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 8

Expressing the sense of the Congress that the United States House of

Representatives and Senate should pass health care reform initiatives

which have received overwhelming bipartisan support, prior to the adjournment of the 103d Congress.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 5, 1993

Mr. STEARNS submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred jointly to the Committees on Energy and Commerce and Ways and

Means

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Congress that‘the United States

House of Representatives and Senate should pass health

care reform initiatives which have received overwhelming

bipartisan support, prior to the adjournment of the 103d

Congress.

Whereas 31 to 37 million Americans do not have adequate

health care coverage;

Whereas every day, Americans who have health care coverage

fear they may lose it due to a sudden catastrophic illness

or change in employment;

Whereas the skyrocketing costs of health care jeopardizes the

current and future accessibility of health care for millions

of Americans;
2

•HCON 8 IH

Whereas physicians must practice medicine in constant fear

of excessive malpractice lawsuits being brought against

them for providing treatment to patients;

Whereas fraud and abuse in the health care system is running rampant and American taxpayers are losing billions

of dollars;

Whereas the American public is demanding action on health

care reform and cannot wait any longer for the Congress

to act; and

Whereas partisanship must not stand in the way of progress

in health care reform: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That the leadership of the United States

3 House of Representatives and Senate should work to4 gether in a bipartisan manner to pass health care reform

5 initiatives which have received overwhelming bipartisan

6 support, prior to the adjournment of the 103d Congress.

Æ
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 298 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 298

Providing for the printing of the book entitled ``Members of the United 
     States House of Representatives: A Historical Bibliography''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 27, 1994

  Mr. Sharp submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
           referred to the Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
Providing for the printing of the book entitled ``Members of the United 
     States House of Representatives: A Historical Bibliography''.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That the book entitled ``Members of the United States House of 
Representatives: A Historical Bibliography'', prepared by the Office of 
the Historian of the House of Representatives, shall be printed as a 
House document, with illustrations and suitable binding.
    Sec. 2. In addition to the usual number, there shall be printed, 
for the use of the Office of the Historian of the House of 
Representatives, the lesser of--
            (1) 5,000 copies of the document; or
            (2) such number of copies of the document as does not 
        exceed a total production and printing cost of $60,005.
                                 <all>
```
# Appendix A

&F-&A

# Appendix B

&F-&A

# Sheet3
Case 4:22-cr-00061-P Document 23 Filed 03/09/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 28
Case 4:22-cr-00061-P Document 23 Filed 03/09/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 29
#### HULSEY v. STATE.

No. 26476.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 10, 1953.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

'DAVIDSON, Commissioner.

This purports to he an appeal from a conviction for the unlawful sale of whisky in a dry area, with punishment assessed at a fine of $300.

No notice of appeals appears to have been given and entered of record.

The jurisdiction of-this court does not attach in the absence pf a notice of appeal.

The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Opinion approved by the Court.
(logo) PACIFIC LIFE  **MANAGEMENT'S REPORT ON ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH SEC REGULATION AB SERVICING CRITERIA**  Pacific Life Insurance Company (the "Asserting Party") is responsible for assessing compliance, as of and for the year ended December 31, 2015, with the Relevant Servicing Criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the SEC's Regulation AB, excluding the criteria set forth in Item 1122 (d)(1)(iii), (d)(2)(ii), (d)(3)(i), (d)(3)(ii), (d)(3)(iii), (d)(3)(iv), (d)(4)(ii), and (d)(4)(xv).which the Asserting Party has concluded are not applicable to the activities it performs, with respect to the asset­ backed securities transactions covered by this report (such criteria, after giving effect to the exclusions identified above, the "Applicable Servicing Criteria"). The transactions covered by this report include all asset-backed transactions under the Securitized Commercial Mortgage Loans Platform (the "Platform"), as listed in Appendix A. The Asserting Party has used the criteria set forth in paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of Regulation AB in order to assess the effectiveness of Pacific Life Insurance Company's compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2015. The Asserting Party has concluded that it has complied, in all material respects, with the Applicable Servicing Criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2015, with respect to the Platform taken as a whole. Deloitte& Touche LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation report for the Platform on the assessment of compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2015, as set forth in this assertion.  Pacific Life Insurance Company  /s/ Michelle SticklesMichelle SticklesVice President, Asset ManagementFebruary 26, 2016  **PACIFIC LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY**700 Newport Center Drive, Newport Beach, California 92660-6397 Tel (949) 219-3011  **APPENDIX A**  **SECURITIZED COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE LOANS PLATFORM**  

| Trust Name                                            | Loan Name                        |
|-------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------|
| Morgan Stanley Series 2006-HQ 10                      | Waterside Mall                   |
| COMM 2014-277P                                        | 277 Park Avenue                  |
| JPMC Houston Galleria Mall Trust 2015-HGLR1 | Houston Galleria Mall Whole Loan |
| JPMC WP Glimcher Mall Trust 2015-WPG2                 | Scottsdale Quarter Whole Loan    |

 1 Closed in March 2015 (servicing duties began)2 Closed in July 2015 (servicing duties began)