alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Agenda – August 2013 Refunding 

Treasury Dealer Meetings – July 25-July 26, 2013 

Dealer ___________________ 

To allow more time for discussion, please e-mail your responses prior to 12:00 PM on Monday, July 22, 2013 to 

Debt.Management@treasury.gov , Sean.Savage@ny.frb.org, Ian.Gordon@ny.frb.org and Meghana.Reddy@ny.frb.org. 

Even if you are not scheduled to meet with Treasury officials this quarter, your responses are still appreciated. 

I. Marketable Borrowing Estimates 

 Central 

Estimate 

Range that would not 

surprise you 

 Low/High 

 July – September 2013 / 

 Ending Cash Balance / 

 October – December 2013 / 

 Ending Cash Balance / 

 FY 2014 Total Net Marketable Borrowing / 

 FY 2015 Total Net Marketable Borrowing / 

 FY 2016 Total Net Marketable Borrowing / 

 

II. Budget Deficit and Growth Estimates 

 FY 2014 / 

 FY 2015 / 

 FY 2016 / 

 Real GDP(4Q/4Q YoY % Chg) CY2014 

 Real GDP(4Q/4Q YoY % Chg) CY2015 

 Nominal GDP(4Q/4Q YoY % Chg) CY2014 

 Nominal GDP(4Q/4Q YoY % Chg) CY2015 

 

III. Quarterly Note and Bond Issuance Estimates 

 3-year note (Aug/Sept/Oct) / / / / - / / 

 10-year note (Aug) / 

 10-year note reopening (Sept/October) / / - / 

 30-year bond (Aug) / 

 30-year bond reopening (Sept/October) / 

 2-year note (Aug/Sept/Oct) / / / / - / / 

 5-year note (Aug/Sept/Oct) / / / / - / / 

 7-year note (Aug/Sept/Oct) / / / / - / / 

 5-year TIPS reopening (Aug) 

 10-year TIPS reopening (Sep) 

 30-year TIPS reopening (Oct) 

 

IV. Bill Issuance Estimates 

 52-week bill size (Aug/Sept/Oct) / / / / - / / 

 Total change in bills outstanding 8/13-10/13 / 

 Total change in bills outstanding FY 2014 / 

 CMB issuance Aug ‘13 – Oct ‘13 (size/date) / / / / 

Discussion Topics 

1. Please discuss your latest economic and fiscal forecasts for FY2014 and FY2015. Do you believe the current auction 

schedule is well-suited to meet Treasury’s expected financing needs? What adjustments, if any, would you 

recommend? 

2. Please discuss the drivers of recent episodes of specialness and fails (in March and June) in on-the-run 10-year 

Treasuries. Do you expect that such episodes will persist and what, if anything, should Treasury do to prevent or 

mitigate these episodes? 

3. Please comment on the current supply and demand dynamics in the TIPS market, including liquidity conditions. 

Discuss the drivers of the recent rise in real rates. What are the implications for the TIPS market over the short to 

medium term, and are there any changes Treasury could make to enhance auction demand and improve secondary 

market liquidity?
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-50025

Summary Calendar

 

SAMUEL DENNIS STINSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

GARY L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR,

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,

INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION; MELINDA

HOYLE BOZART,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. A-97-CV-383

- - - - - - - - - -

July 27, 1998

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Samuel Dennis Stinson, Texas state prisoner # 516177,

appeals from the district court’s dismissal without prejudice of

his mixed civil rights complaint and petition for a writ of

habeas corpus for failure to obey an order of the court.

Stinson’s motion for injunctive relief is DENIED.

A district court may sua sponte dismiss an action for

failure to prosecute or to comply with any court order. Fed. 
No. 98-50025

-2-

R. Civ. P. 41(b); see McCullough v. Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 1126, 1127

(5th Cir. 1988). A sua sponte dismissal by the district court is

reviewed for abuse of discretion. McCullough, 835 F.2d at 1127. 

The scope of the district court’s discretion is narrow, however, 

when the Rule 41(b) dismissal is with prejudice or when a statute

of limitations would bar reprosecution of a suit dismissed

without prejudice under Rule 41(b). See Berry v. CIGNA/RSICIGNA, 975 F.2d 1188, 1190-91 (5th Cir. 1992). Because of the

operation of the statute of limitations, the dismissal may

operate as a dismissal with prejudice of some of Stinson’s

claims. See Long v. Simmons, 77 F.3d 878, 879-80 (5th Cir.

1996). As Stinson suggested in the district court, Stinson’s

“motion to amend his complaint” should have been construed as a

supplemental complaint because the allegations concerned events

occurring after he filed his original complaint on July 1, 1997. 

Because there is no clear record of delay or contumacious conduct

by Stinson, the district court abused its discretion in

dismissing the complaint. See Colle v. Brazos County, Tex., 981

F.2d 237, 243 (5th Cir. 1993).

VACATED AND REMANDED.
DISMISS; and Opinion Filed January 7 , 2015 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 14

- 00321

- CV

MITTIE FLEMING DBA , Appellant

V.

SUBWAY RESTAURANT AND INSURANCE CO. ; BASCOM GROUP, LLC ; AND 1309 MAIN ST APARTMENTS , LLC , Appellees

On Appeal from the 44th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 13

- 00683



### MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Bridges, Lang

- Miers, and Myers Opin ion by Justice Myers
On November 7, 2014, we ordered appellant to file an amended brief no later than

December 8, 2014. We cautioned appellant that failure to comply could result in dismissal of the

appeal without further notice. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 3 8.8( a)(1); 42.3(b),(c). To date, appellant has

not filed the brief or otherwise communicated with the Court. Accordingly, we dismiss the

appeal. See id. 42.3(b),(c).

140321F.P05 /Lana Myers/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE– 2

– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

MITTIE FLEMING DBA, Appellant

No. 05

- 14

- 00321

- CV V.

SUBWAY RESTAURANT AND INSURANCE CO.; BASCOM GROUP, LLC; AND 1309 MAIN ST, LLC, Appellees On Appeal from the 44th Judicial District Court, Dallas County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 13

- 00683. Opinion delivered by Justice Myers. Justices Bridges and Lang

- Miers participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion, we DISMISS the appeal.

We ORDER that appellees Subway Restaurant and Insurance Co. ; Bascom Group, LLC; and 1309 Main St, LLC recover their costs, if any, of this appeal from appellant Mittie Fleming DBA.

Judgment entered this 7th day of January, 2015.
# Official Journal L 200/7 Ju

| | ISSN 1725-2555 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 200 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 477 June 2004 |

ISSN 1725-2555

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 200

English edition

Legislation

Volume 477 June 2004

---

| Contents | | Corrigenda | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | * | Corrigendum to Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (OJ L 166, 30.4.2004) | 1 |
| | * | Corrigendum to Directive 2004/52/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the interoperability of electronic road toll systems in the Community (OJ L 166, 30.4.2004) | 50 |

Contents

Corrigenda

page

*

Corrigendum to Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (OJ L 166, 30.4.2004)

1

*

Corrigendum to Directive 2004/52/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the interoperability of electronic road toll systems in the Community (OJ L 166, 30.4.2004)

50

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

 
 

Exhibit 10.1    
    


 
 

AMENDING AGREEMENT    
    


This
First Amending Agreement dated as of February 21, 2005 is made 


AMONG:



ENBRIDGE
ENERGY MANAGEMENT, L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company, ENBRIDGE ENERGY COMPANY, INC., a Delaware corporation, and ENBRIDGE ENERGY PARTNERS, L.P. 



WHEREAS
the parties have entered into that certain Delegation of Control Agreement dated as of October 17, 2002, (the "Delegation Agreement"). 


NOW
THEREFORE THIS AMENDING AGREEMENT WITNESSES THAT in consideration of the covenant and agreements contained herein and for other good and valuable consideration (the receipt and sufficiency whereof
are hereby acknowledged), the parties hereto have agreed as follows: 


	1.
	The
Delegation Agreement is hereby amended by deleting Section 3.07(b) in its entirety and by inserting therein the following as a new Section 3.07(b): 



"(b)    Notwithstanding
anything to the contrary in this Agreement, Management shall be entitled to be reimbursed by the MLP, on an After-Tax Basis (as defined in the Tax Indemnification
Agreement dated as of even date herewith between Management and Enbridge Inc. (the "Tax Indemnification Agreement")), for any Texas franchise
taxes, any capital-based state taxes and any other similar foreign, state and local taxes not otherwise required to be paid or reimbursed pursuant to
the Tax Indemnification Agreement until such time as the Maximum Permitted Delegation has been terminated; provided, however, that any obligations,
rights and liabilities of Management and the MLP arising with respect to periods before that time shall not terminate and shall continue in full force and effect. Such reimbursements shall be made in
such form, to such persons and at such intervals as Management shall determine in its sole discretion. For purposes of this Section 3.07(b),
Management and any Management Subsidiaries (as defined in the Tax Indemnification Agreement) shall be taken together and treated as Management." 



	2.
	Except
as amended hereby, the terms, conditions and provisions of the Delegation Agreement are hereby ratified and confirmed and henceforth this Amending Agreement and the Delegation
Agreement shall be read and construed as one agreement. 








IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement to be effective as of the date hereof. 



	 	 	ENBRIDGE ENERGY MANAGEMENT, L.L.C.
	

 	
 	
By:	

/s/  DAN C. TUTCHER      
 Dan C. Tutcher
 President
	

 	
 	
ENBRIDGE ENERGY COMPANY, INC.
	

 	
 	
By:	

/s/  DAN C. TUTCHER      
 Dan C. Tutcher
 President
	

 	
 	
ENBRIDGE ENERGY PARTNERS, L.P.
	 	 	By:	Enbridge Energy Company, Inc.,

As general partner
	

 	
 	

By:	

/s/  DAN C. TUTCHER      
 Dan C. Tutcher
 President




Signature page to Amending Agreement to Delegation of Control Agreement











QuickLinks



Exhibit 10.1


AMENDING AGREEMENT
Complaint to U.S. Deparnnent ofTransportation- cityofpage.org- Sm... https:I/24.119.59.214/MainJfrmMessage.aspx?popup=true&folder=l... 

I of I 

Complaint to U.S. Department of Transportation 

Tue 1/14/2014 7:58AM 

From: lrby Randall (RandyT~: ci tyclerk@ci tyofpage .org ( c1 tycl erk@cityorpage.org) ·- .. - 0 A "::11~ ·,~:1 l "":\ _) :....:: u 

....................................................................................................................... -................................................. ~~-=-~ ... :.·.: .. ~.~ .... : ... : ............................................................. . 

Page City Clerk, 

Attached is a duplicate of the online 

complaint I filed with the United States • !•-. 

Department of Transportation. Please 

distribute to the Page City Council, Page City 

Manager and the Page Airport Board 

members. 

Thanks, 

Randy lrby 

l]{arufy J. I r6y 

Sr. tfraini1liJ }lna[yst 

:Navajo generating Station 

1/14/2014 8:08AM 

·-
Complaint filed with the United States Department of Transportation: 

I live in a remote town in northern Arizona. We have the privilege of a small airline to help us get to and 

from major cities like Phoenix and Denver for healthcare and connections to other major airlines, etc. 

The airline that provides that service is Great Lakes Aviation. In 2013 my wife, I and other family 

members used them for travel. In total, my family used them approximately 12 times. The use for my 

wife is primarily medical since she was diagnosed with cancer and is receiving cancer treatments in 

Phoenix. Of the approximate 12 times we attempted to use Great Lakes, more than half of these fights 

were either canceled or were delayed by an hour or more. One flight was 4 hours late only to take off 

and return without completing the flight. On one occasion, my wife missed part of our daughter's 

w~dding in Denver because the flight was canceled. I had a flight canceled the day before it was to fly. I 

was forced to fly a day early, miss work and use vacation. Furthermore, since my wife is being treate·d 

for cancer, we have had to make some quick adjustments to make sure she was able to make her 

treatment in Phoenix. Delays and cancelations of Great Lakes flights are regular and epidemic. We never 

book a flight with Great Lakes unless we have a backup plan. Sometimes this means burning valuable 

vacation and time away from work. This makes travel with Great Lakes very expensive for my family and 

our community. We appreciate the convenience that an airline brings to our community, however Great 

Lakes is not providing reliable service or that convenience. Great Lakes' only redemptio!"' are the friendly 

folks at the Page terminal. If our community can't rely on Great lakes Aviation to provide timely regular 

service, then our community is worse off than having no airline at all. 

Randy lrby 

~·'· ~ .. 

-.~-; 

=:J 

0 

..D
#### BURNSIDE v. STATE.

No. 21447.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 12, 1941.

J. W. McCullough and H. H. Neilson, both of McKinney, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of ■ Austin, for the State.

GRAVES, Judge.

■ Upon appellant’s plea of guilty of the offense of driving an 'automobile upon a public highway while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, and the waiver of a trial by jury, the court assessed his penalty at a fine of $50 and confinement in the county jail for five days.

.The record before us contains neither a statement of facts nor bills of exception. The indictment seems to be in proper form. All matters of procedure appearing regular, the judgment will be affirmed.
Summary of 2005 Executive Officer Base Salaries



 Exhibit 10.1 
  
 Summary of 2005 Executive Officer Base Salaries 
  
 The following is a summary of the 2005 base salaries established for the executive officers of Adolor Corporation. For additional
information regarding the compensation of the Company’s executive officers, please refer to the Company’s Proxy Statement relating to the 2005 Annual Meeting of Stockholders and Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December
31, 2004. 
  

				
	 Name and Principal Position

	  	2005 Base Salary


	 Bruce A. Peacock
	  	$	399,500
	 President, Chief Executive Officer and Director
	  	 	 
		
	 David Jackson
	  	$	348,150
	 Senior Vice President, Research & Development
	  	 	 
		
	 Michael R. Dougherty
	  	$	318,000
	 Senior Vice President, Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer
	  	 	 
		
	 Martha E. Manning
	  	$	266,750
	 Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary
	  	 	 
		
	 James A. Barrett
	  	$	338,000
	 Senior Vice President, Chief Scientific Officer and President, Research
Case 4:22-cv-00952-P Document 1 Filed 10/20/22 Page 1 of 5 PageID 1
Case 4:22-cv-00952-P Document 1 Filed 10/20/22 Page 2 of 5 PageID 2
Case 4:22-cv-00952-P Document 1 Filed 10/20/22 Page 3 of 5 PageID 3
Case 4:22-cv-00952-P Document 1 Filed 10/20/22 Page 4 of 5 PageID 4
Case 4:22-cv-00952-P Document 1 Filed 10/20/22 Page 5 of 5 PageID 5
# Official Journal C 180A/13 J

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 180A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5713 June 2014 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 180A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5713 June 2014

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Announcements |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | European Commission |
| 2014/C 180A/01 | Vacancy for the Executive Director (Grade AD 14) of the European Agency for the management of operational cooperation at the external borders of the Member States of the European Union (Frontex) — COM/2014/10355 | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Commission

2014/C 180A/01

Vacancy for the Executive Director (Grade AD 14) of the European Agency for the management of operational cooperation at the external borders of the Member States of the European Union (Frontex) — COM/2014/10355

1

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| 2014/C 180A/02 | Review of ‘Competition’ C A Official Journals | 6 |

2014/C 180A/02

Review of ‘Competition’ C A Official Journals

6

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-50105

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

FELIPE MAYNEZ-ESPARZA,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. EP-96-CR-483

- - - - - - - - - -

November 24, 1997

Before DUHE’, DeMOSS and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Felipe Maynez-Esparza (“Maynez”) appeals his conviction for

possession with intent to distribute marijuana and importation of

marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 952(a) and

960(a)(1). 

Maynez argues that the evidence presented at trial was

insufficient to support the jury’s finding that he knowingly

possessed and imported marijuana. We have reviewed the briefs

and the record, and conclude that the record is sufficient to
No. 97-50105

-2-

support the jury’s finding that Maynez knowingly imported and

possessed marijuana with intent to distribute. See United States

v. Diaz-Carreon, 915 F.2d 951, 953 (5th Cir. 1990)

Maynez also argues that the district court erred in giving

the jury a deliberate ignorance instruction. Based on Maynez’s

defense of a lack of guilty knowledge and the evidence adduced at

trial, the district court did not err in its instruction. See

United States v. McKinney, 53 F.3d 664, 676 (5th Cir. 1995).

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32.6

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Trump Entertainment Resorts Funding, Inc. (the
Registrant) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John P. Burke, the Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.



|                      |  |                                                                                                                       
|--------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: August 10, 2009 |  | /s/ JOHN P. BURKE                                                                                                     
|                      |  | John P. Burke                                                                                                         
|                      |  | Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Corporate Treasurer of Trump Entertainment Resorts Funding,
Inc.
Summary of Description of Compensation of Directors



 Exhibit 10.28 to 2005 10-Q 
  
 Summary Description of Compensation of Directors 
  
 Convergys employees receive no extra compensation for serving as Directors or committee members. Non-employee Directors
receive compensation consisting of cash and restricted stock units. Non-employee Directors receive an annual retainer of $35,000 and a meeting fee of $1,500 for each Board meeting attended and $1,000 for each committee meeting attended. The Chairmen
of the Audit, Compensation and Benefits, Finance and Governance and Nominating Committees receive an additional fee of $5,000 per year. Non-employee Directors also receive restricted stock units pursuant to the Convergys Corporation 1998 Long-Term
Incentive Plan, as amended (“LTIP”). Each non-employee Director who is first elected or appointed to the Board receives a restricted stock unit award covering 6,300 Common Shares. Each non-employee Director also receives an annual
restricted stock unit award covering 4,200 Common Shares, subsequent to his or her initial election or appointment to the Board, provided that he or she continues in office after the annual meeting. Restricted stock units awarded to non-employee
Directors vest three years after the grant date (or earlier in the case of death, disability or retirement). The Board has agreed to allow Mr. Zimmerman to retain the stock options previously granted to him under the LTIP for the remainder of their
ten-year terms. 
  
 Directors may elect to defer the receipt of
all or a part of their fees, retainers and the shares issuable under restricted stock units under the Company’s Deferred Compensation and LTIP Award Deferral Plan for Non-Employee Directors (the “Directors Deferred Compensation
Plan”). Fees and retainers that are deferred are assumed to be invested as directed by the Directors in the same type of investments, including Company Common Shares, as are made available to employees of the Company under the Company’s
Retirement and Savings Plan. Accounts credited with fees and retainers under the Directors Deferred Compensation Plan will be paid in cash, in one lump sum or up to ten annual installments, when the Director leaves the Board. Amounts credited to the
restricted stock account are assumed to be invested in Common Shares and are distributed in the form of Common Shares when the Director leaves the Board. 
  
 In the event of a change in control as defined in the Directors Deferred Compensation Plan, all accounts will be distributed in a single lump sum.
#### Jesus MURGUIA, Appellant, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 21842.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 15, 1941.

Solomon Casseb, Jr., of San Antonio, for appellant.

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

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Conviction is for negligent homicide, punishment assessed being a fine of $150 and 30 days in jail.

Since the jurisdiction of the Court of Criminal Appeals attached appellant has filed his affidavit advising the court that he does not desire to further prosecute his appeal, and the same is hereby ordered dismissed.