alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Team Industrial Services, Inc. v. Kelli Most, Individually and as 

Personal Representative of the Estate of Jesse Henson

Appellate case number: 01-22-00313-CV

Trial court case number: 18-DCV-256883

Trial court: 268th District Court of Fort Bend County

On May 25, 2022, the Fort Bend County District Clerk filed seven volumes of clerk’s 

record and one supplemental volume of clerk’s record that are sealed. The Court sent two letters 

to the parties, acknowledging receipt of the clerk’s record and the supplemental clerk’s record. 

The letter concerning the seven volumes of clerk’s record merely stated that the clerk’s record had 

been filed and advised of upcoming deadlines. The letter acknowledging receipt of the 

supplemental clerk’s record, referenced this volume as “the certified SEALED clerk’s record,” and 

advised that the clerk’s office would not release sealed volumes without an order from the trial 

court specifying who can have access to the record. The sealed volume contains three trial court 

orders sealing three responses to a no-evidence motion for summary judgment.

On June 2, 2022, appellants filed an unopposed motion to unseal the supplemental volume 

of the clerk’s record. On June 7, 2022, we abated the appeal and remanded it to the trial court to 

hold a hearing to consider appellants’ request to unseal the supplemental volume of the clerk’s 

record. The trial court granted the unopposed motion to unseal the pleadings in the clerk’s record 

on June 27, 2022.

We reinstate the appeal on the Court’s active docket. Pursuant to the trial court’s order, 

the supplemental volume of the clerk’s record is unsealed.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: ___________/s/ Julie Countiss__________

Acting individually

Date: July 7, 2022
Attachment 1 

Federal Employees’ Group Life Insurance Program (FEGLI) 

Premium Rates 

The FEGLI rates effective October 1, 2021 are as follows. 

Employee Basic Insurance (per $1,000 of insurance) 

The US Postal Service pays the Employee share plus the Government share 

for its’ eligible employees. The premiums for compensationers, who are paid 

every four weeks, are two times the biweekly premium. 

Rates Bi-Weekly Monthly 

Employee $0.1600 $0.3467

Government $0.0800 $0.1733

Total $0.2400 $0.5200

Post-Retirement Basic Insurance for Annuitants (monthly rate per 

$1,000 of insurance) 

Reduction Before Age 65 After Age 65 

75% Reduction $0.3467 No cost 

50% Reduction $1.0967 $0.75 

No Reduction $2.5967 $2.25
2

Post-Retirement Basic Insurance for Compensationers (withholding 

every four weeks per $1,000 of insurance) 

Reduction Before Age 65 After Age 65 

75% Reduction $0.32 No cost 

50% Reduction $1.01 $0.69 

No Reduction $2.39 $2.07 

Option A (for $10,000 of insurance) 

The premiums for compensationers, who are paid every four weeks, are two 

times the biweekly premium. 

Age Band Bi-Weekly Monthly 

< 35 $0.20 $0.43 

35 – 39 $0.20 $0.43

40 – 44 $0.30 $0.65

45 – 49 $0.60 $1.30

50 – 54 $1.00 $2.17

55 – 59 $1.80 $3.90 

60 + $6.00 $13.00 
3

Option B (per $1,000 of insurance) 

The premiums for compensationers, who are paid every four weeks, are two 

times the biweekly premium. 

Age Band Bi-Weekly Monthly 

< 35 $0.02 $0.043 

35 – 39 $0.02 $0.043

40 – 44 $0.03 $0.065

45 – 49 $0.06 $0.130

50 – 54 $0.10 $0.217

55 – 59 $0.18 $0.390

60 – 64 $0.40 $0.867

65 – 69 $0.48 $1.040

70 – 74 $0.86 $1.863 

75 – 79 $1.80 $3.900 

80 + $2.88 $6.240 
4

Option C (per multiple of insurance) 

The premiums for compensationers, who are paid every four weeks, are two 

times the biweekly premium. 

Age Band Bi-Weekly Monthly 

< 35 $0.20 $0.43 

35 – 39 $0.24 $0.52 

40 – 44 $0.37 $0.80 

45 – 49 $0.53 $1.15

50 – 54 $0.83 $1.80

55 – 59 $1.33 $2.88 

60 – 64 $2.43 $5.27

65 – 69 $2.83 $6.13

70 – 74 $3.83 $8.30 

75 – 79 $5.76 $12.48 

80 + $7.80 $16.90
##### 



SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
 Washington, D.C.20549
 
 FORM
8-K
 CURRENT REPORT
 Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934
 October 10, 2007
 Energy Transfer Partners, L.P.
  Delaware
(State or other jurisdiction 
of incorporation)
    
    1-11727
(Commission File Number)
    
    73-1493906
(IRS Employer
Identification Number)
 3738 Oak Lawn Avenue
Dallas, TX 75219
 (214) 981-0700
   o
 o
 o
 o




---



##### 



Item 7.01
    
    Regulation FD Disclosure
  Item 9.01
    
    Financial Statements and Exhibits.
  99.1
    
    Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. 2007 Analyst Presentation.




---



##### 



Signatures
  Energy Transfer Partners, L.P.By:
    Energy Transfer Partners GP, L.P.,General Partner By:
    Energy Transfer Partners, L.L.C.,General Partner Date: October 10, 2007
    
    /s/ Brian J. JenningsBrian J. JenningsChief Financial Officer and officer dulyauthorized to sign on behalf of the registrant




---



##### 



Exhibit Index
  99.1
    
    Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. 2007 Analyst Presentation.
****

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm 

To the Board of Directors National Tax Search, LLC 

We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying Management's Report on Assessment of  Compliance  with  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission's  Regulation  AB  Servicing  Criteria,  that  National  Tax Search, LLC (the "Company") complied with certain servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Security and Exchange Commission's Regulation AB for the National Tax Search TaxQ system (the "Platform") as of and for the year  ended  December  31,  2012.  The  Company  has  determined  that  only  certain  servicing  criteria,  II22(d)(I)(ii), II22(d)(I)(iv),II22(d)(2)(ii), II22(d)(2)(v), II22(d)(2)(vi), II22(d)(2)(vii),II22(d)(4)(xi), and II22(d)(4)(xii), are applicable to the activities performed by it with respect to the Platform covered by this report. The Company has determined thatthe remaining servicing criteria set forth in Item II22(d) of the SECRegulation AB are not applicable to the activities performed by it with respect to the Platform covered by this report. 

Management  is  responsible  for  the  Company's  compliance  with  those  servicing  criteria.  Our  responsibility  is  to express an opinion on management's assertion about the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria based on our examination. Our examination was conducted in accordance with standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the applicable servicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in  the  circumstances.  Our  examination  included  a  selection  of  a  sample  of  transactions  and  compliance  activities related  to  the  Platform  during  the  examination  period  and  determining  whether  the  Company  processed  those transactions  and  performed  those  activities  in  compliance  with  the  servicing  criteria.  Our  testing  of  selected transactions and compliance activities was limited to calculations, reports, and activities performed by the Company during  the  period  covered  by  this  report.  Our  procedures  did  not  include  determining  whether  errors  may  have occurred prior to our tests that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report for the selected transactions or any other transactions. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria. 

In our opinion, management's assertion that the Company complied with the aforementioned servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2012 for the Platform is fairly stated in all material respects. 

/s/ Plante & Moran, PLLC  

Chicago, IL February 8, 2013
#### HUSTON v. STATE.

No. 16791.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 23, 1934.

McWhorter *&*Howard, W. M. Peticolas, Jr., and Walter E. Schénck, all of Lubbock, for appellant.

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

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

The indictment under which appellant was tried charged the offense of burglary and contained averments showing two previous convictions in Hale county of like offenses. Because of repetition of offenses, the penalty assessed was imprisonment in the penitentiary for life.

It is unnecessary to set out the indictment. We deem it sufficient.

The state introduced in evidence the indictment in cause No. 1678 in the district court of Hale county, and also the judgment and sentence showing Burton Huston’s conviction for burglary in said cause in 1928. The same proof was made in cause No. 1965 in the district court of Hale county showing conviction of Burton Huston for burglary in 1930. The only proof in the record identifying appellant as the person convicted under the indictments returned in the district court of Hale county came from the witness Hooper, who testified that he was on the police force at Plainview in Hale county in the year 1928, and that in 1930 he was a deputy sheriff. As to appellant’s conviction in Hale county, the witness went no further than to say that appellant was tried in 1928 and again in 1930 in the district court of Hale county. He testified that he did not remember the number of the cases. He did not testify that appellant was. tried for burglary. As far as his testimony was concerned, the trial might have been for offenses of a dissimilar nature. It was imperative that the state prove not onjy that appellant committed the burglary alleged to have been committed in the present case in Lubbock county, but that it establish the identity of appellant as the person convicted under the indictments returned in the district court of Hale county. Walthall v. State, 109 Tex. Cr. R. 26, 2 S.W.(2d) 442. We think the testimony is not sufficient on this point.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded..

PER OURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the court.
EXHIBIT 32.2





CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER





PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In connection with the Annual Report of Emerge Energy Services LP (the “Partnership”) on Form 10-K/A for the period ended December 31, 2014 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,  Joseph C. Tusa, Jr., Chief Financial Officer of Emerge Energy Services GP LLC, the general partner of the Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“Section 906”), that:





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





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





Date: September 16, 2015By:/s/ Joseph C. Tusa, Jr.Joseph C. Tusa, Jr.Chief Financial Officer of Emerge Energy Services GP LLC (the general partner of Emerge Energy Services LP)





The foregoing certification is being furnished to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the Report.
Exhibit 23.2**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption “Experts” and to the use of the followingreports, in Amendment No. 1 to the Registration Statement (Form S-1) and related Prospectus of Targa ResourcesPartners LP for the registration of 12,500,000 common units representing limited partner interests: (1) Our report dated September 28, 2007 relating to the financial statements of the SAOUand LOU Systems of Targa Resources, Inc.,  (2) Our report dated July 29, 2005 relating to the financial statements of the MidstreamOperations sold to Targa Resources, Inc.
(logo)****CURCIO

+COHEN

 

 

**Report of Independent RegisteredPublic Accounting Firm**

 

Managing Member

Park Bridge Lender ServicesLLC

New York, NY

 

 

We have examinedmanagement’s assertion, included in the accompanying Management’sReport on Assessment of 2016 Compliance by Park Bridge Lender Services LLC withRegulation AB Servicing Criteria (“Management’s Report”),that Park Bridge Lender Services LLC (the “Company”) complied withthe servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the U.S. Securities andExchange Commission’s Regulation AB as of and for the year ended December31, 2016, excluding those criteria noted as not applicable (N/A) within ExhibitB to Management’s Report. The transactions covered by this report are onlythose transactions processed by the Company in its capacity as trust advisor oroperating advisor for the asset backed securities transactions (the“Platform”) identified in Management’s Report. ReferenceExhibit A to Management’s Report for the transactions covered by thisexamination. Management is responsible for the Company’s compliance withthe applicable servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinionon management’s assertion based on our examination.

 

Our examination was conductedin accordance with attestation standards of the Public Company AccountingOversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a testbasis, evidence about the Company’s compliance with the applicableservicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we considerednecessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of a selectedsample of the servicing activities related to the Platform, determining whetherthe Company performed those selected activities in compliance with theapplicable servicing criteria during the specified period. Our procedures werelimited to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed by theCompany during the period covered by this report. Our examination was notdesigned to detect material noncompliance arising from errors that may haveoccurred prior to or subsequent to our tests, that may have affected theCompany’s servicing activities during the period covered by this report.We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company’scompliance with the applicable servicing criteria.

 

In our opinion,management’s assertion that the Company complied with the aforementionedapplicable servicing criteria identified in Exhibit B to Management’sReport with respect to the transactions identified in Exhibit A toManagement’s Report as of and for the year ended December 31, 2016, forthe Platform, is fairly stated in all material aspects.

 

 

/s/ Curcio & Cohen,CPA’s, P.C.

 

 

New York, NY

February 2, 2017

 

 

CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTSPC 7 PENN PLAZA, SUITE 1500 NEW YORK NY 10001

TEL: 212 557-9800  FAX:212 557 9819   WEBSITE: WWW.CWCCPAFIRM.COM
#### Saw Mill Supply, Inc., Respondent, *v.*Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., et al., Appellants.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

January 30, 1958.

*Charles J. Costabell*for appellants.

*Walter E. Godfrey*for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

The services of the plaintiff carrier to the subcontractor were not labor or material within the meaning of the bond furnished by the defendants to the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority. *(Troy Public Works Co.*v. *City of Yonkers,*207 N. Y. 81; *Gates & Co.*v. *Stevens Constr. Co.,*169 App. Div. 221.)

Further, the prime contract upon which plaintiff relies was made in Massachusetts and calls for performance in that State; therefore, the law of Massachusetts applies. The law of Massachusetts *“*perhaps most nearly approaches the English rigor ” in denying a third-party beneficiary the right to sue upon a contract to which it is a stranger. (2 Williston on Contracts [rev. edj, § 367, p. 1069; *New England Structural Co.*v. *James Russell Boiler Works Co.,*231 Mass. 274.)

*887Accordingly judgment should be reversed, with $30 costs and complaint dismissed, with costs.

IIecht, J. P., Aurelio and Tilzer, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed, etc.
#### O’QUIN v. STATE.

No. 17897.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 5, 1936.

J. M. Burns, Jr., and Cooper & Baker, all' of Henderson, for appellant.

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

MORROW, Presiding Judge.

Under proper indictment, the appellant was convicted of the offense of theft, and his penalty assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for two years.

The evidence heard in the trial court is not brought forward for review. Nothing is perceived which would authorize interference with the verdict.

The judgment is affirmed.
| **CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED STATEMENT OF STOCKHOLDERS' EQUITY (Parenthetical) (USD $)** | 3 Months Ended | 6 Months Ended |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------|----------------|
||
| **Statement of Stockholders' Equity [Abstract]**                                     |           |           |   |   |
| Cash Dividends on Common Stock (in dollars per share)                                | $ 0.05         | $ 0.03         | $ 0.08 | $ 0.04 |

| X                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Definition
Aggregate dividends paid during the period for each share of common stock outstanding.
+ References
Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher SEC -Name Regulation S-X (SX) -Number 210 -Section 04 -Article 3Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 505 -SubTopic 10 -Section S99 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (SX 210.3-04) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6959260&loc=d3e187085-122770
+ Details**Name:**us-gaap_CommonStockDividendsPerShareCashPaid**Namespace Prefix:**us-gaap_**Data Type:**num:perShareItemType**Balance Type:**na**Period Type:**duration |
| X                                                                                                                                                                         |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Details**Name:**us-gaap_StatementOfStockholdersEquityAbstract**Namespace Prefix:**us-gaap_**Data Type:**xbrli:stringItemType**Balance Type:**na**Period Type:**duration |
#### Horace (Smoky) FOSTER v. STATE.

No. 17184.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 27, 1935.

Fred Stockdale, of Aspermont, and Horace E. Moore and W. E. Myres, both of Fort Worth, for appellant.

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

LATTIMORE, Judge.

This cause is one pending upon the dockets of this court wherein the accused is charged with the possession of intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale; the prosecution being under the. Dean Law (Pen.Code 1925, art. 666 et seq. as amend*482ed). Following what has been said by us in an opinion this day handed down in Guy Meadows v. State, 88 S.W.(2d) 481, the motion for rehearing is granted, the judgment of affirmance is set aside, the opinion heretofore handed down is withdrawn and the judgment is now reversed and the prosecution ordered dismissed.
1

Ogulei, David

From: Marshall, Sarah

Sent: Friday, June 28, 2013 12:04 PM

To: Ogulei, David

Subject: FW: Units 3 and 4 Draft CPT Plan Changes

Attachments: Veolia_Unit 3_CPT Plan_Revised_ June 27, 2013_TRACK.pdf; Veolia_Unit 4 CPT 

Plan_Revised_June 27, 2013_TRACK.pdf

Sarah Marshall 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5 

Air Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Branch 

312-886-6797 

From: David A Klarich [mailto:david.klarich@veoliaes.com] 

Sent: Friday, June 28, 2013 11:58 AM 

To: Marshall, Sarah; Downey, Shannon 

Cc: Doug Harris; Dennis J Warchol 

Subject: Units 3 and 4 Draft CPT Plan Changes 

Sarah/Shannon, 

Attached are the draft CPT Plans for Units 3 and 4 in track change format. We are currently incorporating changes into 

the QAPjP in track change format. We plan to have this completed sometime this afternoon. As soon as we do, we will 

email an electronic version of the QAPjP to you. 

Please do not hesitate to contact Dennis Warchol or me with any questions or comments. 

Dave 

Dave Klarich 

Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. 

#7 Mobile Avenue 

Sauget, IL 62201 

618-271-2804, X120 office 

618-271-9704 fax 

david.klarich@veoliaes.com

http://www.veoliaes.com/

Service first. Safety always. 

This e-mail message from Veolia ES Technical Solutions is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain 

confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are 

not the intended recipient, please communicate with the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original 

message and delete same from all computers.
**EXHIBIT 32.2****CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER****PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES— OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350)**     I, John T. McLaughlin, of US Dataworks, Inc. certify pursuant to section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:     (i) the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2007 (the “Report”),which this statement accompanies fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, and     (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of US Dataworks, Inc.Dated: June 29, 2007       /s/ John T. McLaughlin     John T. McLaughlin Chief Accounting Officer
[No. 42678-8-I.

Division One.

December 4, 2000.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Timothy J. Pruitt, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 97-1-04959-4, Sharon S. Armstrong, J., entered July 6, 1998. *Dismissed*by unpublished per curiam opinion.