alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Order entered August 22 , 2013

In The



## Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 09

- 00758

- CR

DONALD GENE BLANTON

, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 86th District Court

Kaufman County, Texas

Trial Court Caus e No. 15189



### O RDER

Before Justices Moseley, O’Neill, and Lewis

Before the Court is appellant’s motion for rehearing filed on August 8, 2013. We DENY

the motion.

/s/ JIM MOSELEY

JUSTICE
exv10w8



 





EXHIBIT 10.8




AMENDMENT NO. 2 OF EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT




     This AMENDMENT NO. 2 OF EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT entered into by and between
U.S Bancorp, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”) and Jerry A. Grundhofer
(the “Executive”), is entered into effective October 19, 2004.



RECITALS




     WHEAREAS, the Company and the Executive entered into that certain
Employment Agreement effective October 16, 2001;



     WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive entered into an Amendment of
Employment Agreement, effective January 1, 2004; and



     WHEREAS, the parties desire to further amend such Employment Agreement.



AMENDMENT




NOW THEREFORE, it is agreed:





	 	1.	 	Section 4. Terms of Employment (a) Position and Duties is
deleted in its entirety and replaced as follows:






“During the Employment Period, the Executive shall be Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, and, in such capacity, the Executive
shall be responsible for the strategic direction and operations of the
Company, and shall serve on the Company’s Board of Directors and shall
have such other duties, responsibilities, and authorities as shall be
consistent therewith. The Executive shall also be Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer of U.S. Bank, N.A. and shall serve on its Board of
Directors.”




	 	2.	 	In all other respects, the Employment Agreement is approved,
ratified and continued, as amended hereby.
	 
	 	3.	 	This Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts,
each of which shall be an original and all of which, taken together,
shall constitute one and the same agreement.




 









 











IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Executive has hereunto set the Executive’s hand and,
pursuant to the authorization from its Board of Directors, the Company has
caused this
Amendment to be executed in its name on its behalf, all as of the day and year
first above written.




	 	 	 
	

	 	/s/ Jerry A. Grundhofer

	

	 	Jerry A. Grundhofer
	 
	 	 
	

	 	U.S. Bancorp
	 
	 	 
	

	 	/s/ David B. O'Maley

by: David B. O’Maley
	

	 	Chairman, Compensation Committee
	

	 	Board of Directors
<PAGE>


                        FUSION MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.   

                        COMPUTATION OF NET LOSS PER SHARE   
                         (in thousands, except per share data)      EXHIBIT 11.1

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                              Three Months Ended September 30,   Nine Months Ended September 30, 
                                  1997           1996                1997           1996
                              -----------    -----------         -----------     ----------
                              (unaudited)    (unaudited)         (unaudited)     (unaudited) 
<C>                           <S>            <S>                 <S>             <S>
Weighted average common                                         
 shares outstanding                7,066          6,937               7,052          3,635
                               
Common equivalent shares       
 pursuant to Staff Accounting  
 Bulletin No. 83                        -              -                   -           423 
                                ---------      ---------           ---------      --------
Shares used in computing per   
 share amounts (1)                  7,066          6,937               7,052         4,058 
                                ---------      ---------           ---------      --------
                                ---------      ---------           ---------      --------
                                                                                          
Net loss                        $ (2,399)      $ (1,818)           $ (6,973)      $ (5,115)
                                ---------      ---------           ---------      --------
                                ---------      ---------           ---------      --------
                                                                                          
Net loss per share              $  (0.34)      $  (0.26)           $  (0.99)      $  (1.26)
                                ---------      ---------           ---------      --------
                                ---------      ---------           ---------      --------
</TABLE>
                              
(1) PRIMARY AND DILUTIVE EARNINGS PER SHARE ARE THE SAME FOR ALL PERIODS 
PRESENTED.
#### BARKER v. STATE.

No. 17912.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 12, 1936.

Wallace Hughston, of McKinney, for appellant.

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

MORROW, Presiding Judge.

The offense is the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor for .the purpose of sale; penalty assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for one year and two months.

Since the conviction of the appellant, the law upon which the prosecution is founded has been repealed. See Meadows v. State (Tex.Cr.App.) 88 S.W.(2d) 481.

The judgment is reversed, and the prosecution ordered dismissed.
#### O’SHEA v. STATE.

No. 18471.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 10, 1936.

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

LATTIMORE, Judge.

Conviction for robbery; punishment, eight years in the penitentiary.

The record is here without .statement of facts or bills of exception. All matters of procedure appearing regular, the judgment is affirmed.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-13-00514-CR

Craig Rainey Walker, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF COMAL COUNTY

NO. 2009CR1774, HONORABLE CHARLES A. STEPHENS II, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant Craig Rainey Walker filed a motion to dismiss by withdrawing his notice

of appeal. Walker’s motion to withdraw his notice of appeal is granted. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a).

The appeal is dismissed.

 

Jeff Rose, Justice

Before Justices Puryear, Rose and Goodwin

Dismissed on Appellant’s Motion

Filed: October 23, 2013

Do Not Publish
# EUR-Lex - 32004D0019 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32004D0019

**2004/19/EC: Commission Decision of 23 December 2003 amending Decision 2003/812/EC drawing up lists of third countries from which Member States are to authorise imports of certain products for human consumption subject to Council Directive 92/118/EEC (Text with EEA relevance) (notified under document number C(2003) 5046) **

*
Official Journal L 005 , 09/01/2004 P. 0084 - 0084 *

Commission Decision

of 23 December 2003

amending Decision 2003/812/EC drawing up lists of third countries from which Member States are to authorise imports of certain products for human consumption subject to Council Directive 92/118/EEC

(notified under document number C(2003) 5046)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2004/19/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 92/118/EEC of 17 December 1992 laying down animal health and public health requirements governing trade in and imports into the Community of products not subject to the said requirements laid down in specific Community rules referred to in Annex A(1) to Directive 89/662/EEC and, as regards pathogens, to Directive 90/425/EEC(1), as last amended by Commission Decision 2003/721/EC(2), and in particular Article 10(2)(a) thereof,

Whereas:

(1) Commission Decision 2003/812/EC(3) draws up lists of third countries from which Member States are to authorise imports of certain products for human consumption subject to Council Directive 92/118/EEC.

(2) In order to bring this legislation into force at the same time as other legislation laying down the lists of countries and certification for animal by-products not intended for human consumption it is necessary to postpone the date of application of Decision 2003/812/EC from 1 January 2004 to 1 May 2004.

(3) The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

In Article 3 of Decision 2003/812/EC "1 January 2004" is replaced by "1 May 2004".

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 23 December 2003.

For the Commission

David Byrne

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 62, 15.3.1993, p. 49.

(2) OJ L 260, 11.10.2003, p. 21.

(3) OJ L 305, 22.11.2003, p. 17.
#### TEMPLE TRUST CO. et al. v. STUBBS et al.

No. 4426.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Amarillo.

June 24, 1935.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 9, 1935.

Jno. B. Daniel, of Temple, Critz & Woodward, of Coleman, and Bean, Dug-gan & Bean, of Lubbock, for appellants.

Vickers, Campbell & Evans, of Lubbock, for appellees.

*818HALL, Chief Justice.

On July 24, 1926, the Temple Trust Company loaned C. F. Stubbs and wife, Lou Stubbs, $8,500. The loan was evidenced by nine notes, the first eight for $500 each and the last for $4,500; the last note being due October 1, 1936. Before the institution of the suit C. F. Stubbs died, and the surviving widow and her children filed this suit, alleging that the loan was usurious because o.f a provision in the second mortgage to the effect that if default was made in the payment of any installment of the note, or in compliance with any of the terms and conditions of the mortgage, the whole sum of money secured by the second mortgage should become due and payable at the election of the holder.

The case was tried to the court without a jury and resulted in a judgment that -the total sum of $7,160, which had been paid as principal and interest on the debt, should be credited upon the original principal of $8,500, leaving a balance of $1,340 due by the plaintiffs to appellants. The court also found that $1,000 had been paid to H. C. Glenn, as receiver of the Temple Trust Company. Judgment was that the plaintiffs recover of the Trust Company and of the receiver $8,160, and that sum be applied and credited to the extinguishment of the eight notes for $500 each, aggregating $4,500, leaving due by the appellees to appellants the sum of $340 as the only indebtedness secured by the first and second deeds of trust. The judgment further decrees the cancellation of the $1,340 note and the lien securing it.

The contract, like that in the case of M. L. Walker v. Temple Trust Co. (Tex. Com. App.) 80 S.W.(2d) 935, provides that if certain tax and interest payments agreed to be paid on the debt shall exceed 10 per cent., then Stubbs should not be required to pay it unless the court of last resort should hold that such payments would not render the contract usurious.

It further provides that in the event of default the “principal and interest then accrued” shall become due and payable at once. The Supreme Court holds that these and other similar provisions in loan contracts show that there was no intention to charge or collect usury, or at least render the question doubtful and require the court to resolve the doubt in favor of the legality of .the transaction.

We find that this case is in some respects similar to the case of Boles et ux. v. Missouri State Life Ins. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 81 S.W.(2d) 141, and Temple Trust Co. v. Logan (Tex. Civ. App.) 85 S.W.(2d) 816, this day decided. Some of the same assignments are urged in each case, material facts supporting the propositions are identical with the two cases mentioned and the Walker Case, supra, and the disposition of the case must be governed by the same authorities.

For the reasons stated, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
1 

### Ogulei, David

From: Wilson, Darnell Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2015 9:23 AM To: Ogulei, David Cc: Lambesis, Christopher; Ramaly, Todd Subject: RE: Veolia Draft Title V Permit

Good morning David,

I researched your issue below and spoken with HQs a s well as the state of OH and IL. Based on what we have in our state and federal system the following data represe nts Veolia, Ross and Heritage:

Veolia received 1823 LQG records of waste received in the amount of 22,285 tons for 2013. The also rec eived 8,628 tons of waste received from SQG/CESQG. We have no way o f knowing the number of SQGs and CESQGs because the y’re not counting as a generator on the Biennial Report just their waste. The total waste received 30,912.52 t ons.

Heritage received 3128 LQG records of waste receive d in the amount of 31,548 tons. They also received 14,050.75 tons of waste received from SQG/CESQG. The total waste received for Heritage was 45,598 tons.

Ross received 2759 LQG records of waste in the amou nt of 38,522.66 tons. They also received 35,657.36 tons of waste received from SQG/CESQG. The total waste received from Ross was 74,180.02 tons for 2013 the latest da ta available.

We’re unable to decipher how Veolia was able to get the data they have in the table. The data from EI Digest is a publication and not current data. According to HQs the publication contacts people on the biennial re port and get annual calculations. These are quotes and not actu al numbers. We also don’t know if EI Digest is doi ng a random sample or calling each generator in the country. T hat’s something you would need to find out from EI Digest.

According to the state of OH in 2011 the WR (Waste Received) from Ross was 65,046 tons and Heritage wa s 42,962 tons. Also from the 2011 RCRA C incinerated from t he state of OH; Ross incinerated 63,425 tons and He ritage 42,962

tons.

In 2013 Veolia Had 80 records from the form G31-G49 which is spills and accidental as well as remediat ion of past contamination which would be considered one-time. Ross had 150 records from form G31-G49 and Heritage had 157 records from the G31-G49 forms.

I was unable to tell how Veolia used the algorithm to get those numbers. Based on our data we have on file as well as state and verified through HQs the data is availabl e above. I am setting up a meeting invite to discu ss the data this afternoon. In the meantime if you have any questio ns please let me know.

Regards,

Darnell L. Wilson U.S. EPA Region 5 (LP-9J) RCRAInfo/BR Coordinator Ph: (312)886-4759 Fax: (312)697-2590 Email: wilson.darnell@epa.gov 

#  Please consider the environment before printing thi s message.
Exhibit 32.1

SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Louisiana Bancorp, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008, each of the undersigned, Lawrence J. LeBon, III, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and John LeBlanc, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, hereby certify, 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 Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        |  |     |  |                                                  
|----------------------- |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------------------
|Date: November 12, 2008 |  | By: |  | /s/ Lawrence J. LeBon, III                       
|                        |  |     |  | Lawrence J. LeBon, III                           
|                        |  |     |  | President and Chief Executive Officer            
|                        |  |    
|Date: November 12, 2008 |  | By: |  | /s/ John LeBlanc                                 
|                        |  |     |  | John LeBlanc                                     
|                        |  |     |  | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act has been
provided to Louisiana Bancorp, Inc. and will be retained by Louisiana Bancorp, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3059 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3059

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 4500 SE 28th Street, Del City, Oklahoma, as the James Robert Kalsu 
                         Post Office Building.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 14, 2015

 Mr. Russell (for himself, Mr. Lucas, Mr. Bridenstine, Mr. Mullin, and 
  Mr. Cole) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
              Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 4500 SE 28th Street, Del City, Oklahoma, as the James Robert Kalsu 
                         Post Office Building.

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

SECTION 1. JAMES ROBERT KALSU POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 4500 SE 28th Street, Del City, Oklahoma, shall be known and 
designated as the ``James Robert Kalsu Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``James 
Robert Kalsu Post Office Building''.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2859 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2859

 To amend the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 
     to designate the Sonoran Corridor connecting Interstate 19 to 
  Interstate 10 south of the Tucson International Airport as a future 
         part of the Interstate System, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 23, 2015

Ms. McSally (for herself, Mr. Grijalva, Mrs. Kirkpatrick, Mr. Franks of 
 Arizona, Ms. Sinema, Mr. Schweikert, Mr. Gallego, Mr. Salmon, and Mr. 
    Gosar) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 
     to designate the Sonoran Corridor connecting Interstate 19 to 
  Interstate 10 south of the Tucson International Airport as a future 
         part of the Interstate System, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Sonoran Corridor Interstate 
Development Act of 2015''.

SEC. 2. FINDING.

    Congress finds that the designation of the Sonoran Corridor 
Interstate connecting Interstate 19 to Interstate 10 south of the 
Tucson International Airport as a future part of the Interstate System 
would--
            (1) enhance direct linkage between major trading routes 
        connecting growing ports, agricultural regions, infrastructure 
        and manufacturing centers, and existing high priority corridors 
        of the National Highway System; and
            (2) significantly improve connectivity on the future 
        Interstate 11 and the CANAMEX Corridor, a route directly 
        linking the United States with Mexico and Canada.

SEC. 3. ROUTE DESIGNATION.

    (a) High Priority Corridor on National Highway System.--Section 
1105(c) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 
(105 Stat. 2032; 119 Stat. 1210) is amended by adding at the end the 
following:
            ``(81) State Route 410, the Sonoran Corridor connecting 
        Interstate 19 to Interstate 10 south of the Tucson 
        International Airport.''.
    (b) Future Parts of Interstate System.--Section 1105(e)(5)(A) of 
the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (105 Stat. 
2033; 119 Stat. 1213) is amended in the first sentence by striking 
``and subsection (c)(57)'' and inserting ``subsection (c)(57), and 
subsection (c)(81)''.
                                 <all>
```
MATS A and N Finding Overview w/ OMB RobertJ Wayland to: Cortney_Higgins, Darryl Weatherhead, Dave Guinnup, Lydia Wegman, Peter Tsirigotis, Richard Wayland, Sam Napolitano, Wendy Blake 10/31/2011 03:06 PM Cc: Bill Maxwell, Bryan Hubbell, Jeb Stenhouse, Kevin Culligan, Marc Houyoux, Paul Versace, Ron Evans, Tyler Fox

Attached below are the slides for tomorrow's discussion of the A&N finding.

thanx!

bob

Robert J. Wayland, Ph.D. Leader, Energy Strategies Group U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards Sector Policies and Programs Division Mail Code D243-01 RTP, NC 27711

Phone: (919) 541-1045 Cell: (919) 306-2290 Fax: (919) 541-5450 e-mail: wayland.robertj@epa.gov

********************************************************* DRAFT/Deliberative Document -- FOIA Exempt

*********************************************************

********************************************************* DRAFT/Deliberative Docu ment -- FOIA Exempt *********************************************************

Overview of Final MATS Appropriate and Necessary Finding.pptx
#### UNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUARANTY CO. v. HENDERSON et al.

No. 3880.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Amarillo.

Dec. 21, 1932.

See, also, (Tex. Civ. App.) 53 S.W.(2d) 811.

Gibson & Sutton, of Amarillo, for appellant.

Snyder, Owen & Lybrand, of Oklahoma City, Okl., W. A. Keeling, of Austin, and W. M. Lewright, of Pampa, for appellees.

HALL, C. J.

Glen Dale and Earline Henderson, the in fant defendants in this case, through their guardian ad litem, W. M. Lewright, have filed a motion to issue mandate without payment of costs. Attached to the motion is an affidavit by guardian ad litem, Lewright, reciting that said minors are wholly unable to pay the costs or to give security therefor.

While it is true that a guardian ad litem is not chargeable personally with the costs of the suit taxed against his ward, because his connection with the case is imposed by the order of court, it appears that Gladys L. Henderson (Wolf) by cross-action as next friend for her minor children sought to.recover for herself and said minors in this suit.

R. S. art. 1994 expressly provides that a next friend shall, when required, give security for costs or make an affidavit in lieu thereof, and the courts have held that such next friend is liable for the costs incurred by an infant party to a suit. Galveston Oil Co. v. Thompson, 76 Tex. 235,13 S. W. 60; John son v. Taylor, 43 Tex. 121; Biggins v. G., C. *&*S. F. Ry. (Tex. Civ. App.) 110 S. W. 561.

Since the mother is liable for the costs under this statute, the guardian ad litem’s motion to issue mandate without payment of costs must be overruled.