alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Order entered April 30, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-00026-CV

RICHARD GEHRKE AND PACIFIC COMPANIES, INC., Appellants

V.

MERRITT HAWKINS & ASSOCIATES, LLC, Appellee

On Appeal from the 298th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-18-09562

ORDER

Before the Court is appellee’s April 3, 2019 unopposed motion for consideration of 

supplemental in camera record. Appellee explains that, pursuant to the parties’ “Agreed 

Protective Order,” the parties filed certain confidential documents with the trial court 

electronically with redactions, but submitted copies of those documents to the trial judge and 

each other without redaction. The copies submitted to the trial judge no longer exist, and 

appellee seeks to have filed via hand delivery an “in camera supplemental record” containing 

those documents. 

We GRANT the motion to the extent we ORDER the parties deliver a copy of the 

confidential documents to the trial court clerk for inclusion in a supplemental clerk’s record no 

later than May 9, 2019. See Tex. R. App. P. 34.5(e). The supplemental clerk’s record shall be 
filed no later than May 14, 2019 and shall be filed under seal. As appellee references the “in 

camera supplemental record” in its response brief, we further ORDER appellee to file an 

amended brief with citations to the supplemental clerk’s record within ten days of the filing of 

the record. Appellants’ reply brief, which is currently due May 23, 2019, shall be filed within 

ten days of the filing of appellee’s amended brief.

We DIRECT the Clerk of the Court to send a copy of this order to Dallas County District 

Clerk Felicia Pitre and the parties.

/s/ BILL WHITEHILL

JUSTICE
EXHIBIT 32.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Keystone Automotive Industries, Inc. (the Company) hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:



| | (i) | the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended June 29, 2007 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (ii) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | ---- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                      |  |  |  |                        
|--------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|Dated: August 2, 2007 |  |  |  | /s/ RICHARD L. KEISTER 
|                      |  |  |  | Richard L. Keister     
|                      |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer
REGISTRATION 

86277-3 

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
 

______________________________________________________________

Page is not included in this copy.

Pages 359 through 362 are not included in this copy.

_________________________________________________________________

The material not included contains the following type of 

information:

_____ Identity of product inert ingredients.

__ __ Identity of product impurities.

__ __ Description of the product manufacturing process.

__ __ Description of quality control procedures.

__ __ Identity of the source of product ingredients.

_____ Sales or other commercial/financial information.

_____ A draft product label.

__X__ The product confidential statement of formula.

_____ Information about a pending registration action.

__ __ FIFRA registration data.

__ __ The document is a duplicate of page(s) _ .

_____ The document is not responsive to the request.

__ __ Internal deliberative information.

__ __ Privileged attorney-client communication.

__ __ Claimed Confidential by submitter upon submission to the 

 Agency.
*OPINION ISSUED AUGUST 16, 2007*

#### ROBERT C. ORE VS. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS

(CC-06-143)

Claimant appeared *pro se.*

Jason C. Workman, Attorney at Law, for respondent.

PER CURIAM:

Claimant brought this action for vehicle damage which occurred when his 1985 BMW 524td struck a tree in the road on W. Va. Route 4, near Clendenin, Kanawha County. W. Va. Route 4 is a road maintained by respondent. The Court is of the opinion to deny the claim for the reasons more fully stated below.

The incident giving rise to this claim occurred at approximately 8:10 a.m. on September 25, 2005. W. Va. Route 4 is a two-lane highway at the area of the incident involved in this claim. Claimant testified that he was traveling eastbound on W. Va. Route 4 at approximately fifty-two miles per hour when he noticed a tree falling into the road. Mr. Ore stated that he applied the brakes of his vehicle, but that his vehicle still struck the tree. He testified that the tree was approximately forty feet long and was a dead tree that was rotted. His vehicle struck the tree, damaging a wheel, oil pan, oil pump, body, fog lights, radiator and oil cooler totaling $2,323.56.

The position of the respondent is that it did not have actual or constructive notice of the condition on W. Va. Route 4 at the site of the claimant’s accident for the date in question. David Fisher, Highway Administrator for respondent in Kanawha County, testified that he had no prior complaints about the tree that fell onto W. Va. Route 4 prior to the claimant’s incident.

The well-established principle of law in West Virginia is that the State is neither an insurer nor a guarantor of the safety of travelers upon its roads. *Adkins vs. Sims,*130 W.Va. 645; 46 S.E.2d 81 (1947). The general rule of this Court with regard to tree fall claims is that if a tree is dead and poses an apparent risk, then the respondent may be held liable. However, when an apparently healthy tree falls and causes property damage as a result of a storm, the Court has held that there is insufficient evidence of negligence upon which to justify an award. *Wiles v. Division of Highways,*22 Ct. Cl. 170 (1998); *Gerritsen*v. *Dept. of Highways,*16 Ct. Cl. 85 (1986).

In the instant case, the Court is of the opinion that respondent had no notice that the tree at issue posed an apparent risk to the public. While the tree was dead and had no limbs, respondent had received no prior complaints regarding the condition of the tree and further, the claimant testified that the tree fell into the road as he was traveling on it. Therefore, respondent was not negligent in the maintenance of W. Va. Route 4 on the *22date of claimant’s incident. Thus, the claimant may not make a recovery for his loss in this claim.

In view of the foregoing, the Court is of the opinion to and does deny this claim.

Claim disallowed.
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 175 (Tuesday, September 10, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 73450]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-20318]



[[Page 73450]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Request for Information (RFI) on National Science Board-National 
Science Foundation Merit Review Commission Review of NSF's Merit Review 
Policy and Processes; Correction

AGENCY: National Science Foundation.

ACTION: Request for information; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The National Science Board-National Science Foundation 
Commission on Merit Review (MRX) published a document in the Federal 
Register of August 26, 2024, concerning a Request for Information that 
seeks input from interested individuals and parties to inform the MRX's 
review of NSF's merit review policy and process. The document contained 
an incorrect date when responses are due.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Portia Flowers, 703-292-7000, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#5222343e3d25372021123c21347c353d24"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="97e7f1fbf8e0f2e5e4d7f9e4f1b9f0f8e1">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Correction

    In the Federal Register of August 26, 2024, 89 FR 68473, on page 
68473, in the second column, correct the ``Dates'' caption to read:
DATES:
    Interested individuals and parties are invited to submit responses 
to this Request for Information on or before 5 p.m. eastern time on 
Friday, September 20, 2024.

    Dated: September 4, 2024.
Ann E. Bushmiller,
Senior Counsel to the National Science Board.
[FR Doc. 2024-20318 Filed 9-9-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
STEAM ELECTRIC CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE 

EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819 

DCN: SE03539

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT 

CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION 

(CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.
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 Homeland Security

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency

          - [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4761-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2024-0001]

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of New Hampshire (FEMA-4761-DR), dated February 27, 2024, and related determinations.

# DATES:

This change occurred on August 12, 2024.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Robert V. Fogel, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

This action terminates the appointment of William F. Roy as Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,

Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

[FR Doc. 2024-20495 Filed 9-10-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
Exhibit 23.1




CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM




We
consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-160626 and 333-163996 on Form S-3 
and Registration Statement No. 333-143275 and 333-44999 on Form S-8 of Ocwen Financial Corporation and subsidiaries (the
“Company”) of our report dated February 28, 2011 relating to the consolidated financial statements (which report
expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph related to the adoption of new accounting provisions
with respect to consolidation of variable interest entities) and our report dated February 28, 2011 on the effectiveness
of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company
for the years ended December 31, 2010 and 2009.




/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLPAtlanta, GeorgiaFebruary 28, 2011
Exhibit 23.2

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (File
Nos. 33-71346, 33-71350, 33-80213, 33-80215, 333-16349, 333-28971, 333-86117, 333-86119,
333-39084, 333-55222, 333-55224, 333-72154, 333-101698, 333-91394, 333-91392, 333-108294,
333-121387, 333-121388, 333-125444 and 333-147209) of Medarex, Inc. of our report dated March 2, 2009 relating to the financial statements
of Celldex Therapeutics, Inc. (formerly known as AVANT Immunotherapeutics, Inc.) which appears in this Form 10-K.

/s/
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Boston,
MA
March 2, 2009

---



QuickLinks
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11
                       TELEPORT COMMUNICATIONS GROUP INC.
                         COMPUTATION OF LOSS PER SHARE
                   THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1997 AND 1996

 
 
                                               THREE MONTHS ENDED
                                                   MARCH 31,
                                          CONSOLIDATED     COMBINED
                                              1997           1996
                                          -------------  -------------
 
Net Loss                                  $(45,028,000)  $(18,693,000) 
                                          ============   ============ 
 
Primary loss per common share:
 
Weighted average number of shares
 outstanding                              161,665,547     70,000,140
                                          ============   ============
 
Loss per share                            $      (0.28)  $      (0.27)
                                          ============   ============
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2285 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2285

To require mailing addresses to correspond with the physical address at 
                   which the mail will be delivered.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 10, 2018

Mrs. McCaskill introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To require mailing addresses to correspond with the physical address at 
                   which the mail will be delivered.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. MAILING ADDRESS REQUIREMENTS.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter VI of chapter 36 of title 39, United 
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 3687. Mailing address requirements
    ``(a) Definitions.--In this section--
            ``(1) the term `municipality' means a city, town, borough, 
        county, parish, district, association, or other public entity 
        established by, or pursuant to, applicable State law; and
            ``(2) the term `State' means each of the several States, 
        territories, and possessions of the United States, the District 
        of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
    ``(b) Physical and Mailing Address Shall Correspond.--The State and 
municipality used by the Postal Service for the delivery address for 
purposes of mail matter shall correspond with the State and 
municipality of the physical address of the location for the delivery 
of such mail matter.''.
    (b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections for 
chapter 36 of title 39, United States Code, is amended by inserting 
after the item relating to section 3686 the following:

``3687. Mailing address requirements.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT CO. v. MILLS et al.

No. 9330.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

April 18, 1934.

Rehearing Denied May 30, 1934.

*312Louthan & Carroll, of San Benito, and L. L. Lentz, J. M. Wilson, and Frank M. Kemp, all of Corpus Christi, for appellant.

P. E. Dominy, of San Benito, for appelleet

PLT, Chief Justice.

This suit originated in a proceeding applied for by appellant to the judge of the county court at law of Cameron county, for the purpose of obtaining the appointment of a commission to assess the damages which should be paid to appellee for the use of a portion of their land by appellant in erecting and operating its power and light line. The commission assessed the damages at $60, from which award appellees appealed to the county court at law. On a trial before a jury in the county court, damages in the sum of $335 were assessed against appellant and in favor of appellees. An appeal has been perfected from that order to this court by appellant.

The answers of the jury to the special issues submitted to them were to the effect that the strip of land appropriated by appellant, 20 feet in width, across the 60-acre tract of land belonging to appellees, was of the value of $160, and that the rental value of 30 more feet which were at first appropriated by appellant and then relinquished was the sum of $15, mating the total sum of $175 for the lands appropriated by appellant. In addition, the jury found that the taking of the right of way across the land and the erection thereon of the posts and wires of appellant decreased the. value of the 60-acre tract in the sum of $160. Appellant insists that the finding of the jury as to the value of the land appropriated by it, and the rent given for the additional land which was released, was the sum total of the damages that should be assessed against appellant, and that such was the intention of the jury. We do not think that such contention can be sustained because it is obvious that appellant should be made to pay not only for the land actually appropriated by it, but also for any damages that might accrue from the use of the strip of land appropriated to the 60-acre tract. It can readily be seen that the land actually appropriated might be of small value, while the appropriation and use of such, strip of land might cause great damage to the small tract owned by appellees. The first proposition is overruled.

There is no merit in the appeal, and the judgment is affirmed.
#### REASONOVER et al. v. REASONOVER.

Motion No. 10821.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

Jan. 13, 1932.

Rehearing Denied Peb. 17, 1932.

See, also, 43 S.W.(2d) 174.

Greenwood & Lewis, of Harlingen, for plaintiffs in error.

A. B. Crane, of Raymondville, for defendant in error.

SMITH, J.

Writ of error was perfected in this case on September 25, 1931, and under the provisions of article 1839', R. S. 1925, as amended by an Act of the 42d Legislature (Gen. Laws 1931, ch. 66, § 1, p. 10O [Vernon’s Ann. Civ. St. art. 1839]), plaintiffs in error were required to file the transcript in this court within sixty days from said date, unless this court, “for good cause shown before the expiration of such sixty day period,” should “permit the transcript to be thereafter filed upon such terms as it shall prescribe.”

Plaintiffs in error tendered the transcript to the clerk of this court for filing on December 9, 1931, which was after the expiration of the sixty-day period, and, the clerk having refused to file the record, plaintiffs in error have presented a motion in this court for leave to file it. The motion must be denied.

While the statute gives this court discretion in the matter of extending the time for filing records, such discretion is not operative except upon “good cause shown before *383the expiration of such sixty day period.” In other words, by the plain provision of the statute, an appellant or plaintiff in error may invoke the discretion of this court in such matter only when he applies therefor prior to the time he is required by statute to file the record herein.

It appears that before the expiration of the sixty-da^ period, upon plaintiffs in error’s application therefor, the trial court granted and entered an order allowing plaintiffs in error ninety days from the perfection of the appeal in which to file the record in this court. That order is of no effect, however, for, as a matter of course, this court, and not the district court, has the' power of control over such extensions, and such power may be put in operation only by timely invocation.

The motion for leave must-¡be denied.