alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### GUARANTY BOND STATE BANK, NORTH ZULCH v. DONAHO.

No. 2307.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Waco.

March 14, 1940.

*250Bennett & Bennett, of Normangee, for appellant.

Brownlee & Brownlee and A. H. Mene-fee, all of Madisonville, for appellee.

ALEXANDER, Justice.

Final .judgment was rendered in the above cause on October 12, 1939, and motion for ■ new trial’ overruled October 21, 1939. Supersedeas bond was filed November 7,' 1939. Although the time for filing the transcript in this court expired sixty days after the date of the order overruling motion for new trial, the- appellant has wholly failed to file such transcript. The appellee filed herein on the ISth of February, 1940, his motion for affirmance, accompanied by transcript, including supersedeas bond.,

Under the provisions of R.S., Art. 1841, the appellee is entitled to have the judgment of the trial court affirmed, including affirmance of the judgment against the sureties on the supersedeas bond. It is accordingly so ordered.
```

[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 233 (Monday, December 4, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75684-75685]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-30736]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP01-46-001]

Carnegie Interstate Pipeline Company; Notice of Tariff Filing

November 28, 2000.
    Take notice that on November 21, 2000, Carnegie Interstate Pipeline 
Company (CIPCO), tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, 
Original Volume No. 1, the following revised tariff sheets, with an 
effective date of November 1, 2000:

Original Tariff Sheet No. 115A
First Revised Tariff Sheet No. 116

    CIPCO states that these tendered sheets are filed in compliance 
with Order No. 587-L, issued in Docket No. RM96-1-014 by the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission on June 30, 2000 and implements 18 CFR 
284.(c)(ii), regarding the netting and trading of imbalances on CIPCO's 
system.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such 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

[[Page 75685]]

the proceedings. 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. 00-30736 Filed 12-1-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
```
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03

- 21

- 00465

- CV

In re Kenneth M. Best

T. C. , Appellant

v.
Texas Department of Family and Protective Services , Appellee

FROM THE 53RD DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY NO. D

- 1

- FM

- 20

- 004 884 , TH E H ONORABLE AURORA MARTINEZ

- JONES , JUDGE PRESIDING

O R D E R T O S H O W C A U S E

PER CURIAM

This is a contempt proceeding ancillary to the appeal of T. C. The subject of this
proceeding is Kenneth M. Best , appella nt’s attorney.

Appellant f

ile d her notice of appeal on September 10, 2021 , and her brief was due

October 25, 2021 . On October 29, 2021, we ordered counsel to file appellant’s brief no later than

November 4
, 2 0 21 . To date, appellant’s bri ef has not been filed.

Therefore, it is her eby ordered that Kenneth M. Best shall appear in person before

this Court on Wednesday
, Dece mber 1, 2021 , at 1:30 p.m. , in the Third Court of Appeals courtroom,

located on the first floor of the Price Daniel, Sr. Building, 209 West 14th Street, in Austi n, Travis
County, Texas, to show cause why he should not be held in contempt and have sanctions imposed2

for his failure to obey our October 29, 2021 order. This order to show cause will be withdrawn

and Best will be relieved of his obligation to appear be for e this Court as ordered above if the Clerk
of this Court receives appellant’s brief on or before Nove mber 29, 2021.

It is ordered on November 10, 2021.

Before Justices Goodwin, Baker, and Smith
Frontdoorphotos

4717 West Terry Circle

Holland, Michigan 49424

Taylor Bloom

Owner 

616-283-9294

Taylor@frontdoorphotos.net

Content

View document:

Front Door Photos Petition for Exemption / Rulemaking

Attached Files:

1) Front Door Photo's Petition for Excemption / Rulemaking.

2) Consent Form.

3) DJI Phantom 2 and DJI Inspire 1 Preflight Checklist.

4) DJI Inspire 1 and DJI Phantom 2 Vision Manuals.

5) Map of Category A and Category B No fly Zones in Michigan that Front Door Photos

will be using.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6829

THERON JOHNNY MAXTON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

NURSE BRETZ, of Kirkland Correctional Institution; NURSE STANLEY,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Columbia. Charles E. Simons, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-96-382-3-6BC)

Submitted: July 25, 1996 Decided: August 12, 1996

Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Theron Johnny Maxton, Appellant Pro Se. James E. Parham, Jr.,

Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his

motion for a preliminary injunction in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988)

action. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the

district court. Maxton v. Bretz, No. CA-96-382-3-6BC (D.S.C. Apr.

16, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
exv10w1






Exhibit 10.1




AMENDMENT NO. 1

TO

SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT




     THIS AMENDMENT NO. 1 to Second Amended and Restated Employment Agreement dated effective May
21, 2003 (the “Agreement”), by and between Quanta Services, Inc., a Delaware corporation
(“Employer”), and John R. Colson (“Employee”), is hereby entered into this 6th day
of November, 2008.



     WHEREAS, Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and the regulations
promulgated thereunder (collectively, “Section 409A”) require that payments of nonqualified
deferred compensation to “specified employees” be delayed for six months from “separation from
service” (as those terms are defined under Section 409A);



     WHEREAS, Employee is currently identified as a “specified employee” in accordance with
Section 409A;



     WHEREAS, the Agreement provides for the payment of certain severance benefits upon termination
of service, which may be considered nonqualified deferred compensation subject to Section 409A; and



     WHEREAS, Employer and Employee desire to amend the terms of the Agreement to comply with
Section 409A.



     NOW, THEREFORE, Employer and Employee agree as follows:



     1. A new paragraph (f) is added to Section 6 of the Agreement to read as follows:




     “(f) Compliance with Section 409A of the Code. Notwithstanding any
other provision to the contrary, if the Compensation Committee of the Board of
Directors of the Employer (the “Committee”) determines in its discretion
that severance payments due under this Agreement constitute “nonqualified deferred
compensation” subject to Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as
amended (the “Code”), and that the Employee is a “specified employee” as
defined in Section 409A(a)(2)(B)(i) of the Code and the regulations and other
guidance issued thereunder, then such severance payments shall commence on the first
payroll date of the seventh month following the month in which the Employee’s
termination occurs (with the first such payment being a lump sum equal to the
aggregate severance payments the Employee would have received during the prior
six-month period if no such delay had been imposed). For purposes of this
Agreement, whether the Employee is a “specified employee” will be determined in
accordance with the written procedures adopted by the Committee which are
incorporated by reference herein.”



 - 1 - 









 





     2. Any provisions of the Agreement not specifically amended herein shall remain in full force
and effect.



     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto set their hand the day and year first above written.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	EMPLOYER:



Quanta Services, Inc.

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ DARREN B. MILLER
 	 
	 	 	Name:  	Darren B. Miller 	 
	 	 	Title:  	Vice President – Information

Technology and Administration 	 
	 
	 	EMPLOYEE:

 	 
	 	/s/ JOHN R. COLSON
 	 
	 	John R. Colson 	 
	 	 	 
	 




 - 2 -
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-75,523-03

IN RE JOEY SULA, Relator

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS

CAUSE NO. 48,258 IN THE 400 DISTRICT COURT TH

FROM FORT BEND COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Relator has filed a motion for leave to file an application for a writ of mandamus pursuant

to the original jurisdiction of this Court. In it, he contends that he filed a motion for judgment nunc

pro tunc on or about May 2, 2014, and after a hearing in December 2016, the trial court has not taken

action on the motion. Relator presented his claim to the First Court of Appeals, but was denied relief.

In re Sula, No. 01-17-00117-CR (Tex. App.—Houston [1 Dist.] Apr. 20, 2017) (not designated for st

publication). A trial court has a ministerial duty to rule “upon a motion that is properly and timely

presented to it for a ruling.” State ex rel. Young v. Sixth Judicial Dist., 236 S.W.3d 207, 210 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2007). Relator has alleged facts which, if true, could entitle him to mandamus relief. 
2

In these circumstances, additional facts are needed. Respondent, the Judge of the 400th

District Court of Fort Bend County, shall file a response addressing whether Relator has properly

filed a motion for judgment nunc pro tunc in that court. If relator has filed such a motion, the

respondent shall address whether the motion has been ruled upon and, if the motion has not been

ruled upon, the respondent shall discuss the rationale for not taking action on the motion.

Respondent’s answer shall be submitted within 30 days of the date of this order. This application

for leave to file a writ of mandamus will be held in abeyance until Respondent has submitted her

response.

Filed: October 18, 2017

Do not publish
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

JUDGMENT

Juan Luis Obeso, Appellant

No. 06

- 13

- 00138

- CR v.
The State of Texas, Appellee Appeal from the 276th District Court of Titus County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 17,713 ). Memorandum Opinion delivered by Justi ce Moseley, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice Carter participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court

below

. We affirm the judgment of the trial court

. We no te that the appellant, Juan Luis Obeso, has adequately indicated his inability to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED APRIL 25, 2014 BY OR DER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
EXHIBIT 32.2








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 Annual Report of Boston Financial Tax Credit Fund Plus (the “Fund”) on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2011  as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, the Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





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





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











/s/Kenneth J. Cutillo


Kenneth J. Cutillo


Principal Executive Officer and


Principal Financial Officer


Arch Street VIII, Inc., as


Managing General Partner of


Boston Financial Tax Credit Fund Plus,


A Limited Partnership








Date:           June 29, 2011





A signed original of this written statement required by section 906 has been provided to the Fund and will be retained by the Fund and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.2

                               STORAGE USA, INC.

                              AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO
                  1995 EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE AND LOAN PLAN

     This Amendment No. 4, dated as of May 3, 2000 to the Storage USA, Inc. 1995
Employee Stock Purchase and Loan Plan, recites and provides as follows:

     At the annual meeting held on May 3, 2000 the shareholders of Storage USA,
Inc. (the "Company") voted to amend the Company's 1995 Employee Stock Purchase
and Loan Plan (the "Plan"), pursuant to Article XI of the Plan, to increase the
number of shares of the Company's Common Stock available under the Plan from
750,000 to 1,250,000.

     NOW, THEREFORE, the following amendment to the Plan is hereby adopted:

     Article V.  The maximum aggregate number of shares of Common Stock that may
     be issued under this Plan is 1,250,000 (subject, however, to adjustments as
     provided in Article VIII).


     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment No. 4 to be
executed as of the date first above written.


                                   STORAGE USA, INC.


                                   By: /s/ John W. McConomy
                                       ---------------------
                                       John W. McConomy
                                       Secretary
EXHIBIT 99.2

                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 LeCroy Corporation (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Scott D. Kantor,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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

/s/ Scott D. Kantor
-------------------
Scott D. Kantor
Chief Financial Officer
February 7, 2003
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-6242

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

DWAYNE STEPLIGHT,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District

Judge. (CR-01-264; CA-03-33-AM)

Submitted: August 9, 2004 Decided: September 8, 2004

Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dwayne Steplight, Appellant Pro Se. LeDora Knight, OFFICE OF THE

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
*

See Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 367-70 (4th Cir. 2004)

(holding that order denying relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) in

a habeas setting is “the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding”

subject to the certificate of appealability requirement of 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2000)).

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Dwayne Steplight appeals a district court’s order

construing his “motion to vacate plea of guilty and evidentiary

hearing” as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and dismissing it as

successive, noting that Steplight has not obtained authorization

from this court to file such a motion. An appeal may not be taken

from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.*

 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue

absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that

his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 338 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Steplight has not made the requisite

showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny

leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny Steplight’s motion for

appointment of counsel, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with
- 3 -

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
04/07/2010 10:03 FAX 5852762353 GOVT RELATIONS SI 0-100407-

PRESIDENT 

Joel Scligman 

240 Watlis Hall 

Rochester. NY 146270011 

58S.275.8356, 58S.256.2473 fax 

sengmandffldiester.edu 

^ROCHESTER 

April 1,2010 

The Honorable R»y LaHood 

Secretary 

U.$. Department of Transportation 

Washington. D.C. 20590 

The Honorable J. Randolph Babbitt 

Administrator 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue. SW 

Washington, D.C. 20$91 

Docket No. i 

Dear Secretaiy LaHood and Administrator Babbitt: 

As President of one of the top private employers in New York State and one of the nation's 

leading private universities with thousands of students, faculty, staff and administrators that frequently 

use the Greater Rochester International Airport, I am concerned about the proposed transaction between 

Delta Airlines and US Airways and the impact this would have on travel to and from Washington 

National Airport and New Yoric's LaGuardia Airport. 

While average airfares in the Rochester region have decreased from being among the highest in 

the nation. Rochester travelers to and from Ronald Reagan National Airport, in particular, continue to 

experience exorbitant airfares that can sometimes exceed SIOOO for a round-trip flight. Although travel 

between Rochester and Dulles International Airport, as well as between Rochester and 

Baltimore/Washington International Airport, can be less expensive, it is not the most convenient or 

conducive for conducting business in the Washington, D.C. area. 

That is why I strongly support the Department of Transportation's recent decision (Docket No. 

PAA-2010-0109) to require a number of slots be made available to new entrants and limited incumbent 

carriers under the proposed transaction between Delta Airlines and US Airways. Competition will give 

travelers better service, lower fares, and better access. It will also facilitate economic growth by 

attracting new businesses and helping create jobs. A strong, competitive airline industry is a 
04/07/2010 10.03 FAX 5852762353 GOVT RELATIONS 810-100407-014 

The Honorable Ray LaHood 

The Honorable J. Randolph Babbiu 

April. 1,2010 

Page Two 

significant public benefit that will help us continue to strengthen the University's economic footprint in 

the region. If the proposed transaction were approved without these conditions, it would lead to further 

consolidation, limited access, and increased fares. 

I urge you to uphold the Order and thank you for your consideration of this request. 

Sincerely, 

q ?kX ie)»-5/rvK, 

JoefSeligman 

President 

JS/ps 

cc: The Honorable Louise M. Slaughter
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.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

# Agency Holding the Meeting:

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

# Time and Date:

11 a.m., Monday, December 11, 2000.

# Place:

Marriner S. Eccles Federal Reserve Board Building, 20th and C Streets, NW., Washington, DC 20551.

# Status:

Closed.

# Matters to be Considered:

1. Personnel actions (appointments, promotions, assignments, reassignments, and salary actions) involving individual Federal Reserve System employees.

2. Any items carried forward from a previously announced meeting.

# Contact Person for More Information:

Lynn S. Fox, Assistant to the Board; 202-452-3204.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

You may call 202-452-3206 beginning at approximately 5 p.m. two business days before the meeting for a recorded announcement of bank and bank holding company applications scheduled for the meeting; or you may contact the Board's Web site at http://www.federalreserve.gov for an electronic announcement that not only lists applications, but also indicates procedural and other information about the meeting.

Dated: December 1, 2000.

Robert deV. Frierson,

Associate Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 00-31103 Filed 12-1-00; 3:58 pm]

BILLING CODE 6210-01-M
**CERTIFICATION
      OF THE CEO AND CFO 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 Auxilio, Inc. and Subsidiary (the
“Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending September 30, 2006 as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
      we, Etienne Weidemann, Chief Executive Officer and Paul T. Anthony Principal
      Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
      as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
      to
      the best of my knowledge:











(1)  The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and









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











Date:
      November 14, 2006




By:  /s/
      Etienne Weidemann


Etienne Weidemann, Chief
      Executive Officer














By: /s/
      Paul
      T. Anthony


Paul T. Anthony, Principal Financial Officer