alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Opinion issued November 9, 2023

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-23-00566-CV

———————————

BRENT BURGIN AND STACY BURGIN, Appellants

V.

SHARP ENGINEERING, INC., Appellee

On Appeal from the 240th District Court

Fort Bend County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 16-DCV-229534

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellants Brent Burgin and Stacy Burgin appealed from the trial court’s July 

27, 2023 order granting summary judgment in favor of appellee, Sharp Engineering, 

Inc. On October 31, 2023, appellants filed an “Unopposed Motion to Dismiss 
2

Appeal,” stating that appellants “no longer wish[ed] to prosecute this appeal.” 

Appellants further requested that the Court “dismiss th[eir] appeal.”

No other party has filed a notice of appeal, and no opinion has issued. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1), (c). Appellants’ motion includes a certificate of 

conference stating that appellee is unopposed to the relief requested in the motion. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 10.3(a)(2).

Accordingly, the Court grants appellants’ motion and dismisses the appeal. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1), 43.2(f). We dismiss all other pending motions as 

moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Goodman, Countiss, and Farris.
Approved for Release: 2019/05/02 C051 08545 

THE WHITE HOUSE 

WASHINGTON 

22 March 1968 

MEMORANDUM FOR 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

Attention: Mr. Myron Krueger 

Pursuant to our conversation, the minutes 

are attached for your information and guidance. 

Pet 

At tachment 

BYEMAN Excerpt 

Approved for Release: 2019/05/02 CO-=5--"-10=-:8""-"5-=-:4:-=5 ______________ _ 
Approved for Release: 2019/0"5/02 C051 08545 

... ~JftL.I_ 

EXCERPT - Minutes of the Meeting of the 303 Committee, 

19 March 1968 

PRESENT - Mr. Rostow, Mr. Bohlen, Mr. Nitze, and Mr. Helms. 

Admiral R. L. Taylor and Mr. William Trueheart 

were also present. 

113. APOLLO 6 Flight Photography (BYE 12849-68) 

On the question of APOLLO 6 photography, the thrust of 

the paper entitled "APOLLO 6 Flight Photographyll (BYE 12849-68) 

was approved by the committee principals. It was further 

directed that all photography, either domestic or foreign, 

should be screened by the COMIREX mechanism prior to public 

release. It was recognized that the long-standing point of 

sensitivity in satellite photography is the possible accusation 

of violation of sovereignty with the USG being maneuvered into 

a position where the question of overflight permission is 

raised. A careful judgment in the release of material will 

help to sidestep this controversy." 

HANDLM VIA 8YEMAN 

COIIt1ROL JlYSTI£M ONL.Y 

Taken from BYE 12,022/68 

Approved for Release: 2019/05/02 C051 08545
#### National Surety Company, Respondent, vs. Badger Trucking Company, Inc., Defendant, and Neeb and others, Appellants. [Three appeals.]

For the appellant John Stellpflug: *Harvey C. Hartwig*of Milwaukee.

For the appellant P. J. Schulteis: *A: H. Smith*of Milwaukee, attorney, and *F. J. Smith*of Merrill of counsel.

For the appellant John Neeb: *Harvey C. Hartwig*and *A. H. Smith,*both of Milwaukee. ■

For the respondent: *Miller, Mack & 'Fairchild*of Milwaukee.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.
# C_2004312EN.01000601.xml

| 17.12.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 312/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.12.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 312/6

---

Renotification of a previously notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3579 — WPP/GREY)

(2004/C 312/06)

(Text with EEA relevance)

| 1. | On 20 October 2004, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking WPP Group plc (WPP, UK) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the abovementioned Regulation control of the whole of the undertaking Grey Global Group Inc. (Grey, USA). |
| --- | --- |

1.

On 20 October 2004, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking WPP Group plc (WPP, UK) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the abovementioned Regulation control of the whole of the undertaking Grey Global Group Inc. (Grey, USA).

1

| 2. | This notification has been declared incomplete on 22 November 2004. The undertakings concerned have now provided the further information required. The notification became complete within the meaning of Article 10(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 on 10 December 2004. Accordingly, the notification became effective on 10 December 2004. |
| --- | --- |

2.

This notification has been declared incomplete on 22 November 2004. The undertakings concerned have now provided the further information required. The notification became complete within the meaning of Article 10(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 on 10 December 2004. Accordingly, the notification became effective on 10 December 2004.

| 3. | The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
  Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (No (32-2) 296 43 01 or 296 72 44) or by post, under reference number COMP/M.3579 — WPP/GREY, to the following address:





  European Commission |
| --- | --- |
| Competition DG |
| Merger Registry |
| J-70 |
| B-1049 Brussels |

3.

The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (No (32-2) 296 43 01 or 296 72 44) or by post, under reference number COMP/M.3579 — WPP/GREY, to the following address:

European Commission

Competition DG

Merger Registry

J-70

B-1049 Brussels

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
DARRELL J. P ARK S, P laintif f,
v. EDWARD F . REILLY, JR. et al. ,

Defendan ts. UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE DIS TRICT OF COLUM BIA

Civil Action 09-1270 (HHK )

MEMORAN DUM This pro seprisoner a ction is before the Court on defe ndants’ motion to dism iss [ Dkt. No. 17] and plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery [Dkt. No. 23] . By

Orde r of F ebrua

ry 2, 2010, plaintiff was a dvised to respond to def endants’ motion by

Marc h 8, 2010, or risk dismissal of the complaint on what would be tr eate d as a c oncede d motion. By Minute Order s of Marc h 15, 2010, and Apr il 29, 2010, the Court, gr antingplaintiff’s motions, ex tended the time f or him to respond; the late st deadline wa s J une 24, 2010. Mea nwhile, on April 16, 2010, plaintiff filed the pendingmotion to compel discovery that he cla imed to have r equeste d on Dec ember 30, 2009. Def endants have not re sponded to this moti on. 1 In any event, the two most re cent or ders mailed to plaintiff’ s addre ss of rec ord we re returne d to the Clerk as unde liverable
. SeeDkt. No. 27. Plaintiff has not complied with the
Although pla intiff invokes Fe d. R. Civ. P . 56(f) , seePl.’s Aff. in Support of Mot. to 1 Compel at ¶ 7, he doe s not specify why he “c annot pre sent fac ts essential to justify [hi s] opposition,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f), to the pendingmotion to di smiss. On a motion t o dismiss , the Court must acce pt as true plaintiff’ s stated fa cts. See E rickson v. Pardus , 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007).require ment of L ocal Civil Rule 5.1(e) to maintain a c urre nt addre ss and he ha s neither

responde d to the dispositi ve motion nor soug ht additional time to do so. Beca use the re cord is ambiguous as to whether

plaintiff has c oncede d the motion to dis miss, the Court will not gr ant defe ndants’ motion as conc eded but will instead dismiss the case for f ailure to prose cute. A separ ate Or der a ccompa

nies this Memorandum.

________s/s____________ Henr y H. Kenne dy , J r. United States District J udg e Date: July

20, 2010

2
EXHIBIT 1
                                    KSW, INC.

                         STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION
                        OF NET EARNINGS (LOSS) PER SHARE
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                      Three Months Ended
                                                           March 31
                                                     1998             1997
                                                     ----             ----
<S>                                               <C>             <C>      
Net earnings/(loss)                               $(331,000)      $ 500,000
                                                  =========       =========
EARNINGS/(LOSS) PER SHARE - PRIMARY
Weighted average shares
  outstanding during the period                   5,457,422       5,542,978

Earnings/(loss) per
  common share - Primary                               (.06)            .09
                                               =============      ============

EARNINGS/(LOSS) PER SHARE - DILUTED
Weighted average shares
  outstanding during the period                   5,457,422       5,542,978

Common & Common Stock
  equivalent shares using the
  treasury stock method                             157,720         170,096

Total shares outstanding for
  purposes of calculating
  fully diluted earnings/(loss) 
  per share                                       5,615,142       5,713,074

Earnings/(loss) per
  common and common
  equivalent share - Diluted                           (.06)            .09
                                                  ==========       =========
</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          46,366
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  137,539
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     26,592
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               232,669
<PP&E>                                       4,258,286
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,805,579
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,180,345
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          323,629
<BONDS>                                      1,798,845
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          1
<COMMON>                                        16,653
<OTHER-SE>                                     891,537
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,180,345
<SALES>                                        301,900
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               301,900
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  287,223
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                40,538
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              56,191
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (95,135)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (15,673)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (79,462)
<DISCONTINUED>                                     547
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (80,552)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.60)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.60)


</TABLE>
### IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2024 ND 61

In the Interest of S.S.C., Child

State of North Dakota, Petitioner and Appellee

v. S.S.C., child; and
G.S.C., father; Respondents

and
L.S.C., mother, Respondent and Appellant

No. 20240053

Appeal from the Juvenile Court of Ward County, North Central Judicial District, the Honorable Kelly A. Dillon

, Judicial Referee

.

AFFIRMED

.
Per Curiam

.

Rozanna C. Larson, State’s Attorney, Minot, ND

, for petitioner and appellee; submitted on brief.

Erica L. Chisholm, Wahpeton, ND

, for respondent and appellant; submitted on brief.1 Interest of S.S.C. No. 20240053

Per Curiam

. [¶1] L.S.C. appeals from a juvenile court order terminating her parental rights to S.S.C. The court found it was undisputed S.S.C. had been in foster care for a total of 724 continuous nights at the time of the hearing, and :

“ That the totality of circumstances in this case, including the history of drug use, the lack of consistent involvement in treatment and cooperation with the Human Service Zone, the length of time before a possible reunification can take place, and the prognostic evidence of the likelihood that the parents’ current inability to care for the child will continue into the foreseeable future, force the Court to the conclusion that the only real solution in this matter is

a termination of parental rights. ”

[¶2] L.S.C. argues the evidence does not support findings that S.S.C. is in need of protection and the conditions and causes of the need for protection are likely to continue. After reviewing the record, we conclude the juvenile court’s findings are not clearly erroneous and the court did not abuse its discretion when it terminated L.S.C.’s parental rights. See Interest of A.C. , 2022 ND 123, ¶ 5, 975 N.W.2d 567 (the clearly erroneous standard of review applies to factual findings made in a termination of parental rights proceeding); see also Interest of A.P. , 2022 ND 131, ¶ 2, 976 N.W.2d 244 (whether terminating parental rights would promote the child’s welfare is left to the court’s discretion when the required elements are prove n by clear and convincing evidence). We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4).

[¶3] Jon J. Jensen, C.J. Daniel J. Crothers Lisa Fair McEvers Jerod E. Tufte Douglas A. Bahr
,. • .1

•

-

•

go L. rateel .04

. •

-4A %mix V

Cro4TROL Sy

•

.•

.t/

Copia%

e,titrai

gi

19 DEC 1964 •

IA( POR macaw or anima INTSLLICINEX

SOILIECT: — Ma Processing

Reference isms& to your asmorandus of

14 December, subject as above'.

As requested, I will be prepared to brief

the !SO Executive Committee on this matter within

two watts.

SUbsequiently, representatives of the NRO

Staff will be prepared to discuss this subject with

appropriate ambers of your staff in any degree of

detail desired.

3

4 .

1-2 e

RF -1

WIT .5.5-/

7 ) (4-/e1

`:102i AUTOWZIC

Z2.70.20 DOES NOT •

Brockway McMillan

Director

National Reconnaissance Office
wear. Kr,g- •

euti,

THE DIRECTOR dENCE

1 4 DEC 1964

MEMORANDUM FOR: Director

National Reconnaissance Office

SUBJECT : NRO Film Processing

• WASHINGTON 2 L C •

•

3

..

.4.

• 4

The NRO now depends on the Eastman Kodak Company

in Rochester, New York, and the Air Force Special Projects

Processing Laboratory in Westover, Massachusetts, for processing of the film produced by most NRO programs. According

to the memorandum of understanding regarding processing and

reproduction of photography signed on U. August 1962, the Eastman

Kodak covert processing facility under CIA is to be utilized for

processing all original negative materials, some film duplication,

and R&D of new processing techniques for both laboratories.

Westover is to be "utilized to produce duplicates for distribution

to users."

In connection with the FY 1965 NRO budget review, it is

necessary that this policy be reaffirmed or modified by joint

agreement so that we can comment properly on your budgetary

proposals. We have inquired several times about this area, but

have received no clear response. This causes us some concern

in view of your proposed annual report to the PFIAB which makes

little distinction between the two facilities. We note further that

an operational readiness inspection is to be held at AFSPPL in

January, 1965, to demonstrate its capability "executing 'wombto-tomb' processing of CORONA production at the earliest practicable time." Your several references to the "excessive" overtime

at the Eastman Kodak facility is another indication that you may

be proposing to recommend reconsiderations of the original distribution of responsibilities between EX and AFSPPL.

111101%64

PY

isrtes_Aãopy •

• — • '7: .`""•"•Tr.."•77-.77.."r7Tririgni"":":"0-17177.77177,7411:7'

. • .

. .

. .

.

. •

••-.1%

- •

" - •

.. •

. :
3. I therefore request that you brief the NRO Executive

p

Committee at your earliest opportunity, and subsequently ap- ropriate members of my staff, on your plans and utilization of the two film proposals for processing facilities.

Director

cc:

A. McCaw! CLUA

Deputy Secretary of Defeat;

3

•

• • "•'"" •••' 1.•••••••• ,•••••• n•Trar •
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.                  

###### Tennessee Valley Authority

## Meeting No. 15-01

                    The TVA Board of Directors will hold a public meeting on February 12, 2015, in the Missionary Ridge Auditorium of the Chattanooga Office Complex, 1101 Market Street, Chattanooga, Tennessee. The public may comment on any agenda item or subject at a                     *public listening session*                     which begins at 8:30 a.m. (ET). Following the end of the public listening session, the meeting will be called to order to consider the agenda items listed below. On-site registration will be available until 15 minutes before the public listening session begins at 8:30 a.m. (ET). Preregistered speakers will address the Board first. TVA management will answer questions from the news media following the Board meeting.                

# Status:

 Open.

## Agenda

Chairman's Welcome

### Old Business

Approval of minutes of the November 6, 2014, and December 30, 2014, Board Meetings.

### New Business

1. Designation of Corporate Secretary

2. Report from President and CEO

3. Report of the External Relations Committee

A. Regional Energy Resource Council Charter

4. Report of the Audit, Risk, and Regulation Committee

5. Report of the People and Performance Committee

6. Report of the Finance, Rates, and Portfolio Committee

A. Financial Performance Update

B. Off-Peak Overlay Rate Extension

C. Extension of Fleet Services Contract

D. Acquisition of Generation Facility

E. Utility-Scale Solar PPA

7. Report of the Nuclear Oversight Committee

For more information: Please call TVA Media Relations at (865) 632-6000, Knoxville, Tennessee. People who plan to attend the meeting and have special needs should call (865) 632-6000. Anyone who wishes to comment on any of the agenda in writing may send their comments to: TVA Board of Directors, Board Agenda Comments, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902.

Dated: February 5, 2015.

Sherry A. Quirk,

General Counsel. 

[FR Doc. 2015-02915 Filed 2-10-15; 11:15 am]

BILLING CODE 8120-08-P
<PAGE>   1

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.11

                                 FIRST AMENDMENT
                                       TO
                            LOAN AND PLEDGE AGREEMENT

         THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE LOAN AND PLEDGE AGREEMENT (this
"AMENDMENT") is made as of February 1, 2001 by and between World Commerce
Online, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "COMPANY"), and Bank Morgan Stanley AG
(the "LENDER").

                                R E C I T A L S :

         WHEREAS, for value received, the Company and Lender executed a Loan and
Pledge Agreement dated as of January 16, 2001 (the "LOAN DATE") in the amount of
1,000,000 dollars ($1,000,000) (the "LOAN AGREEMENT"); and

         WHEREAS, the Company and the Lender agree to amend and modify the Loan
Agreement as of the Loan Date to clarify certain provisions.

         NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein
and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which
are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereby agree as follows:

         1.       AMENDMENT TO THE LOAN AGREEMENT. The ", or" shall be deleted
from the end of Section 3.5(i), and the following shall be added:

                  "or under substantially similar terms as those set forth in
                  this Agreement, or"

         2.       EFFECTIVE TIME OF AMENDMENT. The amendment and modification to
the Loan Agreement as set forth in Section 1 above shall be retroactively
effective as of the Loan Date.

         3.       NON-MODIFICATION. Except to the extent amended and modified
hereby, all terms, provisions and conditions of the Loan Agreement shall
continue in full force and effect and remain unmodified and enforceable.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment effective
as of the Loan Date.

                                       WORLD COMMERCE ONLINE, INC.



                                       By: /s/ Mark E. Patten
                                          -------------------------------------
                                       Mark E. Patten, Chief Financial Officer

                                       LENDER



                                       By: /s/ Bettina Busenhart Pope
                                          -------------------------------------
                                       Name: Bettina Busenhart Pope
                                            -----------------------------------
                                       Title: VP
                                             ----------------------------------



                                       By: /s/ R. Bucher
                                          -------------------------------------
                                       Name: R. Bucher
                                            -----------------------------------
                                       Title: VP
                                             ----------------------------------
# C_2004201EN.01001602.xml

| 7.8.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 201/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.8.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 201/16

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 25 May 2004

in Case T-69/03: W v European Parliament (1)

(Officials - Resettlement allowance - Definition of residence - Evidence)

(2004/C 201/35)

Language of the case: French

In Case T-69/03: W., a former official of the European Parliament, residing in Folkestone (United Kingdom), represented by P Goergen, lawyer, against the European Parliament (Agents: J. de Wachter and L. Knudsen) — application for annulment of the decision of the European Parliament of 3 June 2002 refusing to grant the applicant a resettlement allowance — the Court of First Instance, composed of J.D. Cooke, single judge; I. Natsinas, administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 25 May 2004, in which it:

| 1. | Dismisses the application. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the application.

| 2. | Orders the parties to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  
  OJ C 101 of 26.4.2003.

---