alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Order entered April 24, 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 18

- 01544

- CR

BRANDY NICHOLE CROWE

, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Crimi nal District Court No. 6

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F16

- 34211

- X



### O RDER

Before the Court is appellant’s April 22, 2019 motion for extension of time to file her

brief. We GRANT th is motion

. 1 Appellant’s brief shall be due THIRTY DAYS from th e date of

this order.

/s/ CORY L. CARLYLE

JUSTICE

1 We remind counsel of the specific requirements our rules place on motions to extend time. See Tex. R. App. P. 10.5(b) (“Contents of Motion in General. All motions to extend time, except a motion to ex tend time for filing a notice of appeal, must state: (A) the deadline for filing the item in question; (B) the length of the extension sought; (C) the facts relied on to reasonably explain the need for an extension; and (D) the number of previous extension s granted regarding the item in question.”).
**MEMORANDUM**

**DATE** : July

2013 **SUBJECT:** Links to Nav y and EPA websites for additional information on El Toro MCAS **FROM :**  Mary

Ay cock, Project Manager EPA Region IX **TO:** EPA Headquarters Additional information and various documents related to El Toro MCAS are available at EPA’s “El Toro Marine Corps Air Station” website and the “Former Marine Corps Air Station El Toro” website of Naval Facilities Engineering Command Base Realignment and Closure Program Management Office:

 El Toro Marine Corps Air Station , U NITED S TA TES ENVIRONMENTAL P ROTECTION A GENCY , http://yosemite.epa.gov/r9/sfund/r9sfdocw.nsf/ViewByEPAID/CA6170023208 (last visited June 4, 2013)
.

 Former Marine Corps A ir Station El Toro, Naval Facilities Engineering Command Base Realignment and Closure Program Management Office, http://www.bracpmo.navy .mil/basepage.aspx?base id=40&state=California&name=eltoro
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2171 

To amend the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 to set the rate 

of pay for employees of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection 

in accordance with the General Schedule. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 29, 2017 

Mr. ENZI introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to 

the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 

to set the rate of pay for employees of the Bureau 

of Consumer Financial Protection in accordance with 

the General Schedule. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘CFPB Pay Fairness 

5 Act of 2017’’. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2171 IS

1 SEC. 2. RATE OF PAY FOR EMPLOYEES OF THE BUREAU OF 

2 CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1013(a)(2) of the Con4 sumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 (12 U.S.C. 

5 5493(a)(2)) is amended to read as follows: 

6 ‘‘(2) COMPENSATION.—The rates of basic pay 

7 for all employees of the Bureau shall be set and ad8 justed by the Director in accordance with the Gen9 eral Schedule set forth in section 5332 of title 5, 

10 United States Code.’’. 

11 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

12 subsection (a) shall apply to service by an employee of the 

13 Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection following the 

14 90-day period beginning on the date of enactment of this 

15 Act. 

Æ 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 10.16
-------------



   SCHEDULE OF HOLDERS OF 6% CONVERTIBLE SUBORDINATED NOTES DUE 2000



                Principal        Base
   Date of      Amount           Conv.
    Note        of Note          Shs         Name
  --------     ----------     ----------     --------------------

    3/1/99       $500,000      1,515,152     Seaside Partners

    4/7/99       $100,000        303,030     Suzanne Musikantow

   4/19/99        $33,000        100,000     Univest Mgt. E.P.S.P.,
                                             c/o Frank Gerondi

   5/11/99        $75,000        227,273     Leonard R. Prange

   5125/99         $6,600         20,000     Kathleen B. Hanley

   5/31/99        $50,000        151,515     D. Craig Wright

    6/3/99       $100,000        303,030     Howard A. Hackett

    6/3/99        $30,000         90,909     Gregory A. Booth

    6/4/99        $25,000         75,758     Robert Cecchini

    6/4/99        $25,000         75,758     Andrew K. Strange
                 --------      ---------

                 $969,600      2,938,183
                 ========      =========
##### 



Exhibit 31.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, John D. Erickson, certify that: 1.    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Otter Tail
Corporation; 2.    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to
make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by
this report; 3.    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
financial information included in this report, fairly present in all
material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash
flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report; 4.    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: (a)   designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused
such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the
registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to
us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared; (b)   evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions
about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as
of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
evaluation; and (c)   disclosed in this report any change in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal
quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected,
or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal
control over financial reporting; and 5.    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the
registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions): (a)   all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which
are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial information; and (b)   any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management
or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting. Date: March 12, 2004/s/ John D. Erickson
John D. Erickson
President and Chief Executive Officer
```

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 68 (Friday, April 8, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 20633]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-08139]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-9026-4]

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS; NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General 
Information (202) 564-7146 or http://www2.epa.gov/nepa.

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements (EISs)
Filed 03/28/2016 Through 04/01/2016
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

    Notice: Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make 
public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's 
comment letters on EISs are available at: https://cdxnodengn.epa.gov/cdx-nepa-public/action/eis/search.

EIS No. 20160070, Final, BLM, DC, Vegetation Treatments Using 
Aminopyralid, Fluroxypyr, and Rimsulfuron on Bureau of Land Management 
Lands in 17 Western States, Review Period Ends: 05/09/2016, Contact: 
Gina Ramos 202-912-7226.
EIS No. 20160071, Draft Supplement, NIGC, CA, Jamul Indian Village, 
Comment Period Ends: 05/23/2016, Contact: John R. Hay 202-632-7003.
EIS No. 20160072, Draft, USFS, CA, Tobias Ecosystem Restoration 
Project, Comment Period Ends: 05/23/2016, Contact: ODell Tucker 559-
539-2607 ext. 213.
EIS No. 20160073, Second Draft Supplemental, USFS, WY, Oil and Gas 
Leasing in Portions of the Wyoming Range in the Bridger-Teton National 
Forest, Comment Period Ends: 05/23/2016, Contact: Donald Kranendonk 
435-781-5245.

Amended Notices

EIS No. 20160074, Final, GSA, DC, ADOPTION--Department of Homeland 
Security Headquarters at the St. Elizabeth West Campus to Consolidate 
Federal Office Space on a Secure Site, Contact: Jennifer Hass 202-834-
4346 The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has adopted the 
General Services Administration's Final EIS # 20080452, filed with the 
USEPA on 11/07/2008. DHS was a cooperating agency for this project. 
Recirculation of the document is not necessary in accordance with 
Section 1506.3(c) of the CEQ Regulations.
EIS No. 20160075, Final, GSA, DC, ADOPTION--Department of Homeland 
Security Headquarters Consolidation at St. Elizabeths Master Plan 
Amendment--East Campus North Parcel St. Elizabeths Campus, Contact: 
Jennifer Hass 202-834-4346. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
(DHS) has adopted the General Services Administration's Final EIS 
#20120049, filed with the USEPA on 03/02/2012. DHS was a cooperating 
agency for this project. Recirculation of the document is not necessary 
in accordance with Section 1506.3(c) of CEQ Regulations.

     Dated: April 5, 2016.
Dawn Roberts,
Management Analyst, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal 
Activities.
[FR Doc. 2016-08139 Filed 4-7-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Kathleen Lombardi, :

Petitioner :

:

v. : No. 208 C.D. 2020

:

Workers' Compensation Appeal :

Board (UPMC Health Plan, Inc.), :

Respondent :

PER CURIAM O R D E R

NOW, December 14, 2021, having considered Respondent’s

application for reconsideration and Petitioner’s answer in response thereto, the 

application is denied.
From the 2011 Official AMA National Model Aircraft Safety Code

Radio Control Section, #5:

RC model aircraft will not operate within three (3) miles of any pre-existing flying site without a frequencymanagement agreement.

A frequency-management agreement may be an allocation of frequencies for each site, a day-use

agreement between sites, or testing which determines that no interference exists. A frequencymanagement agreement may exist between two or more AMA chartered clubs, AMA clubs and individual

AMA members, or individual AMA members. Frequency-management agreements, including an

interference test report if the agreement indicates no interference exists, will be signed by all parties and

copies provided to AMA Headquarters

Variations for AMA Frequency Management Agreements:

1

st Party 2nd Party

AMA chartered club AMA chartered club

AMA chartered club Club not affiliated with AMA

AMA chartered club Individual AMA member

Individual AMA member Individual AMA member

Individual AMA member Individual not affiliated with AMA

There can be more than 2 parties involved in a Frequency Management Agreement. Be sure to assign the

designated frequencies to all parties and inform all involved members (i.e. post the assignments at the

flying site).

Please note, that only officers of the chartered club can sign the Frequency Management Agreements on

behalf of the club.

Note:

Once a Frequency Management Agreement is in place it does not have to be renewed on a yearly basis.

It is valid until one or both parties (if AMA chartered club) disband, relocate, or sell the property. The

agreement is only valid for the specific parties named, which means if a club disbands and another AMA

chartered club/individual member uses the flying site, a new Frequency Management Agreement will have

to be created, signed by all parties involved, and copies sent to AMA HQ.

Participants in the Frequency Management Agreement are responsible for informing any guest flying at

the site about the agreement and enforcing that only frequencies assigned for that particular site are used!

Important:

The Frequency Management Agreement requirement is waived on a provisional basis for club(s)

operating exclusively on 2.4 GHz. However, the club will have to submit a 2.4 GHz agreement toAMA.



Individual AMA member means that the individual is using the specific property for RC Flying unrelated to anyclub

affiliation he or she might have, within proximity of another party.

Q:\Special Services\Documents\FORMS\#923 Frequency ManagementAgreement.doc 12/2009 ISM
#### FOSTER v. STATE.

No. 18544.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 12, 1936.

Savage, Holder & Oatis, of Dallas, for appellant.

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

MORROW, Presiding Judge.

Theft of an automobile is the offense; penalty assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for two years.

The indictment appears regular. The evidence heard in the trial court is not brought forward. Nothing is presented by bills of exception or otherwise which would warrant a reversal.

The judgment is affirmed.
#### DURHAM v. SIMPSON.

No. 4304.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Amarillo.

Nov. 19, 1934.

Carl Rountree, of Lamesa, for appellant.

MARTIN, Justice.

Appellee was given judgment against appellant in the county court of Lynn county for the amount of a note and for foreclosure of a chattel mortgage on personal property, the value of which was not alleged in his pleadings. Appellee’s petition was hare of any showing of jurisdiction in the county court over his cause of action, and the trial court erred in not sustaining a general demurrer to same. This is not a debatable question. Foster v. First National Bank (Tex. Civ. App.) 70 S.W.(2d) 764, and authorities there cited; 11 Tex. Jur. p. 743.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
### 342

OFFICE OF THE A’ITORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS

Honorable

0. If. &leg CountyAuditor Clay County Henrl.ettia,

Teas Dear Slrr OpinionX0. Q-7523 R%: Tslxabillty

of b&c deposit8 Pour recent letterInquiresa whether noney on deposit in a bank in this State is wbje6t to tiuatioo.

iii’6diiwut your attenticm to Articles 7147 and 7149, ReriasdStatutes, 1925. Tbcca 6tatut6s lpkke it alew that the mere faot that a **taxpayer** d-6 not havemoney in hi6 persoaalpoaseat;ion

foil dam$ary1, of a taxable year,but ha8 it on&;;g't in P bank,: does not allow ma& fund8 $.o yapa

. T! ~., You laqnirofklSO.at what percmte’e ‘such depofitr are to be emk-med. By law, all property, if ncludlng

money ou deposit,



### ie raqtllred

to be taxed at it6 trw and -1 vahe (fore statut;ary drfinitioo of tbo 

### term *ialuea a8 used ia st6tutjes

relating

to ad valorcra taxiM.on; bea ArUe 7169, uupraji~

Of course,all pmpwty +st be ,66aecseed OR the aaiw %P : our Constttutisn requlresthat 

### tazstioa be equal **end** ttn mm. Therefar%, if less than true and fplU,valw Im the bass &wasa&&mmnt of pro.pertLa other thatbmk deposits a -9 wit .seelsing to tax bank **depoidts,auat~assosr** them kw t-t ?a~

on the ssms pemeutege barl.8 rrs.ethw

texableprp perti88.2

You &l&bask low the A66e6sor-0ollectm uan find.out about sue& dopoofts. ae ,&a not consider this 'inquiry a quetk tion of lriw,

axid hence psruttezw%t **disaiosd.~ ’**  

### thereof.

**,; Yours**  **very truly**
----

| I.   | Return of/Condition of Aircraft.  In consideration of $350,000 to be paid by Lessee to Lessor on or before December 31, 2010, the parties agree that the Astra may be returned to Lessor at any time in the same condition as it is in on December 27, 2010, ordinary wear and tear excepted. |
|----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| II.   | Ratification.  All other terms and conditions of the Agreement remain in full force and effect. |
|-----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| III.   | Counterpart Signatures.  This Agreement may be signed in counterparts, the compilation of which shall be considered as one document. |
|------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of AnnTaylor Stores Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K
for the period ended January 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), we, Kay Krill, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Michael J. Nicholson, Chief 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 each of our 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 operations of the Company.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |                         
|-------------------- |  | ------------------------
|Date: March 12, 2010 |  | /s/ Kay Krill           
|                     |  | Kay Krill               
|                     |  | Chief Executive Officer 
|                     | 
|Date: March 12, 2010 |  | /s/ Michael J. Nicholson
|                     |  | Michael J. Nicholson    
|                     |  | Chief Financial Officer 

A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to AnnTaylor Stores Corporation and will be retained by AnnTaylor Stores Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
**Exhibit 23.1**

[Letterhead of Deloitte & Touche] 

 

**INDEPENDENT AUDITORS’ CONSENT**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 33-91048 of PG&E Gas Transmission, Northwest Corporation on Form S-3 of our report dated February 6, 2003, which expresses unqualified opinionand includes emphasis paragraphs relating to the purchase of an entity under common control; financial difficulties of the parent company, and bankruptcy of an affiliated company, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of PG&E GasTransmission, Northwest Corporation for the year ended  December 31, 2002. 

 

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP 

 

Portland, Oregon

March 4, 2003
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-41048

Summary Calendar

 

REGINALD ALONZO COOPER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

MELINDA BOZARTH, Director, Texas Board of

Pardons and Paroles, ET AL.,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:95-CV-919

- - - - - - - - - -

April 24, 1997

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Reginald Alonzo Cooper, Texas inmate #591149, moves this

court for leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis (IFP) from

the dismissal of his civil rights complaint. He has complied

with the certification requirements of the Prison Litigation

Reform Act of 1995, and his motion for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis is GRANTED.
No. 96-41048

- 2 -

Cooper is assessed an initial partial filing fee of $1.67. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). Cooper must also make monthly

payments of 20% of the preceding month’s income credited to his

account. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). The agency having custody

of Cooper is ORDERED to forward funds from Cooper’s account to

the clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of

Texas in payment of the initial partial filing fee. Thereafter,

funds must be forwarded each time the amount in Cooper’s account

exceeds $10, until the full filing fee of $105 is paid. 

Cooper challenges the district court’s dismissal as

frivolous of his civil rights complaint which asked for damages. 

The district court dismissed the complaint without prejudicing

Cooper’s opportunity to proceed on the underlying claims through

a petition for the writ of habeas corpus. For essentially the

same reasons upon which the district court relied by adopting the

magistrate judge’s recommendation, see Cooper v. Bozarth, No.

1:95-cv-919 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 4, 1996), we conclude that the court

did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the complaint pursuant

to Heck v. Humphrey, 114 S. Ct. 2364, 2372 (1994). See Denton v.

Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992).

Cooper’s motion for consolidation of this appeal and the

habeas petition proceeding in the district court is DENIED.

IFP GRANTED. INITIAL PARTIAL FILING FEE ASSESSED. 

AFFIRMED. CONSOLIDATION MOTION DENIED.