alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Cyrenius M. Green. Respondent, *v.*William H. Plank, Appellant.

(Argued September 25, 1871;

decided January term, 1872.)

Action to recover possession of a canal boat, with damages for the taking and detention. After proof of title, of the taking, and that plaintiff had lost its use from the time of taking up to the time of trial, plaintiff, as a witness, was permitted to answer, under objection, the following question: “State the damages for the taking and withholding the boat during that time ?” Held, error, upon authority of case *Matthews*v. *Matthews*(2 N. Y., 514.)

*670
      *Barlow & Kennedy*for the appellant.

*I). K M. Johnson*for the respondent.

Lott, Oh. 0., reads for reversal.

Hunt and Leonard, CC., concur.

Earl, 0., reads for affirmance.

Gray, C., concurs.

(The Commissioners dissenting agree with the majority upon the question of law, but hold that the evidence received could, by no possibility, have injured defendant.)

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, costs to abide event.
TS-11KK4D Addendum to Manufacturing

Redacted
aimt-ex1010_15.htm



 

Exhibit 10.10(b)

Aimmune Therapeutics, Inc.

8000 Marina Boulevard, Suite 300

Brisbane, CA  94005

 

December 27, 2018

 

Stephen G. Dilly, M.B.B.S., Ph.D.

8000 Marina Boulevard, Suite 300

Brisbane, California 94005

 

Dear Stephen:

 

As we have discussed, we are excited to offer you an extension to the term of your employment with Aimmune Therapeutics, Inc. (the “Company”) on the terms described in this letter.  As you know, on November 5, 2017, you and the Company entered into a Transition and Separation Agreement (the “Agreement”) under which you are employed as Special Advisor to the Company.  Under the Agreement, your employment with the Company is scheduled to end on the Planned Resignation Date (as defined in the Agreement), which is December 31, 2018.  However, as we have discussed, we would like to extend the Planned Resignation Date to December 31, 2019, provided, that during the remainder of the Transition Period (as defined in the Agreement), your base salary will be reduced to a rate of $12,000 per annum, you will no longer be eligible for per diem compensation and you will be required to devote not less than two and one-half business days per week to the provision of Transition Services.  For the avoidance of doubt, your outstanding equity awards will continue to vest in accordance with their current vesting schedule.   

 

If you are in agreement with the changes described in this letter, please indicate your acceptance of the terms of this letter by your signature below and return it to me at your earliest convenience.  Upon your signature to this letter, the Agreement will be deemed amended to reflect a Planned Resignation Date of December 31, 2019 and the compensation described in this letter.  All other terms and conditions of the Agreement will not be affected by this letter.

 

Sincerely,

 

AIMMUNE THERAPEUTICS, INC. 

 

 

By:  _/s/ Douglas T. Sheehy

Douglas T. Sheehy, General Counsel

Accepted and Agreed:

 

 

/s/ Stephen G. Dilly                      

Stephen G. Dilly, M.B.B.S., Ph.D. 

Date:  12/27/2018
T.M. v. M.J.P.

2160272

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

June 16, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
dave_Ex10_39



		

			Exhibit 10.39

		





		
			AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
		

		
			This Amendment to the Employment Agreement, effective November 12, 2018 (the “Amendment”), modifies the Employment Agreement (the “Agreement”) by and between Famous Dave’s of America, Inc., a Minnesota Corporation (the “Company”), and Paul Malazita (“Executive”), effective March 6, 2018. This Amendment is made in accordance with Section 9(c) of the Agreement. All of the capitalized terms not otherwise defined in this Amendment have the same respective meanings as contained in the Agreement. The provisions of the Agreement that are not modified by this Amendment shall remain in full force and effect pursuant to their terms.
		

		
			WHEREAS, the Executive is currently serving as the Company’s interim CFO; and
		

		
			WHEREAS, Executive wishes to continue to be employed by the Company and the Company desires to continue to employ Executive as permanent CFO on the terms and conditions set forth in the Agreement, as modified by this Amendment.
		

		
			NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of these premises, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged and intending to be legally bound, the parties hereto agree to the following amendments to the Agreement:
		

			
	
			
				 1.
			

			
	
			
			Base Salary.  The Base Salary provision in Section 3(a) of the agreement is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following provision:




		
			Base Salary. The Company shall pay to Executive the sum of ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($180,000) as an annual salary (the “Base Salary”), payable in accordance with the normal payroll practices of the Company.
		

			
	
			
				 2.
			

			
	
			
			Bonus. The Bonus provision in Section 3(b)(i) of the Agreement is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following provision:




		
			Executive shall be eligible to receive a discretionary annual Bonus, which shall be determined by the Board in its sole discretion based upon Executive’s achievement of milestones, with said milestones reasonably determined by the Board prior to the commencement of each fiscal year. The target amount of each annual Bonus is expected to be 50% of Base Salary (however these are targets and not guaranteed amounts), which at the discretion of the Board of Directors, could be paid up to 20% in Stock of the Company.
		

		
			IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment to be effective as of the day and year first above written.
		

		
			FAMOUS DAVE’S OF AMERICA, INC.EXECUTIVE

By: /s/ Jeffery Crivello/s/ Paul M. Malazita
Name: Jeffery CrivelloPaul Malazita
Title: Chief Executive Officer
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1530 

To amend the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 to expand the scope of 

individuals and activities which are subject to the requirements of such Act. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 2, 2021 

Ms. WILD (for herself and Mr. SARBANES) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 to expand 

the scope of individuals and activities which are subject 

to the requirements of such Act. 

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 ‘‘Lobbyist Loophole Clo5 sure Act’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1530 IH

1 SEC. 2. EXPANDING SCOPE OF INDIVIDUALS AND ACTIVI2 TIES SUBJECT TO REQUIREMENTS OF LOB3 BYING DISCLOSURE ACT OF 1995. 

4 (a) COVERAGE OF INDIVIDUALS PROVIDING LEGIS5 LATIVE, POLITICAL, AND STRATEGIC COUNSELING SERV6 ICES.— 

7 (1) TREATMENT OF LEGISLATIVE, POLITICAL, 

8 AND STRATEGIC COUNSELING SERVICES IN SUPPORT

9 OF LOBBYING CONTACTS AS LOBBYING ACTIVITY.— 

10 Section 3(7) of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 

11 (2 U.S.C. 1602(7)) is amended— 

12 (A) by striking ‘‘efforts’’ and inserting 

13 ‘‘any efforts’’; and 

14 (B) by striking ‘‘research and other back15 ground work’’ and inserting the following: ‘‘leg16 islative, political, and strategic counseling serv17 ices, research, and other background work’’. 

18 (2) TREATMENT OF LOBBYING CONTACT MADE

19 WITH SUPPORT OF LEGISLATIVE, POLITICAL, AND

20 STRATEGIC COUNSELING SERVICES AS LOBBYING

21 CONTACT MADE BY INDIVIDUAL PROVIDING SERV22 ICES.—Section 3(8) of such Act (2 U.S.C. 1602(8)) 

23 is amended by adding at the end the following new 

24 subparagraph: 

25 ‘‘(C) TREATMENT OF PROVIDERS OF LEG26 ISLATIVE, POLITICAL, AND STRATEGIC COUNVerDate Sep 11 2014 20:16 Apr 17, 2021 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H1530.IH H1530

pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1530 IH

1 SELING SERVICES.—Any individual who for fi2 nancial or other compensation provides legisla3 tive, political, and strategic counseling services 

4 which are treated as lobbying activity under 

5 paragraph (7), and which are used in support 

6 of a lobbying contact under this paragraph 

7 which is made by another individual, shall be 

8 considered to have made the same lobbying con9 tact at the same time and in the same manner 

10 to the covered executive branch official or cov11 ered legislative branch official involved.’’. 

12 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

13 this section shall apply with respect to lobbying contacts 

14 made on or after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND NOTES THERETO INCLUDED IN THE
COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 1998 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                       5,182,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,029,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                311,930,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             367,613,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                     57,500,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       209,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  93,136,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               367,613,000
<SALES>                                    122,945,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              113,970,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              7,897,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 3,044,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          4,853,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 4,853,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.24
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.24
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2 Section 906 CFO Certification

     CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the filing of this report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
April 5, 2005 (the "Report") by Pomeroy IT Solutions, Inc., the undersigned
hereby certifies that:

     1.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
          or 15(d) 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 Pomeroy IT Solutions, Inc.


     May 16, 2005                    /s/Michael E. Rohrkemper
                                     ----------------------------
                                     Michael E. Rohrkemper
                                     Chief Financial Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Pomeroy IT Solutions, Inc. and will be retained by Pomeroy IT
Solutions, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
#### Rickey B. REED, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE, NFL unincorporated tax exempt not for profit association; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-56988

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*620Submitted March 8, 2017 *

Filed March 20, 2017

Rickey B. Reed, Pro Se

Lauren Schweitzer, Attorney, Diana M. Torres, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Los Ange-les, CA, Defendants-Appellees

Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Rickey B. Reed appeals pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing his diversity action alleging breach of implied-in-fact contract and other state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). *Lee v. City of Los Angeles,*250 F.3d 668, 679 (9th Cir. 2001). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Reed’s implied-in-fact contract claim because Reed failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendants “voluntarily accepted [Reed’s proposal] knowing the conditions on which it was tendered and the reasonable value of the work.” *Grosso v. Miramax Film Corp.,*383 F.3d 965, 967 (9th Cir. 2004) (setting forth the elements of a claim under *Desny v. Wilder,*46 Cal.2d 715, 299 P.2d 257 (1956), for a breach of implied-in-fact contract when an idea is furnished by one party to another).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

Reed’s motions seeking to supplement the record (Docket Entry Nos. 21-23) are denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Bernard Smyth Construction Corp., Plaintiff, *v.*Mary P. Brooks, Defendant.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Suffolk County,

August 6, 1973.

*J. Edgar Swanin*for defendant. *Julius J. Scavuzzo*for plaintiff.

Leon D. Lazer, J.

In this action to rescind a contract for the purchase of a parcel of land, the return of the down payment made under it and for damages, defendant moves to dismiss the complaint, asserting plaintiff’s failure to state a cause of *359action, and the defense of documentary evidence (CPLR, 3211, subd. [a], pars. 1, 7).

The dispute centers on a clause in the contract which provides that:

> *“*6. Said premises are sold and are to be conveyed subject to:

> *“*a. Zoning regulations and ordinances of the city, town or village in which the premises lie and all amendments thereto provided they do not prevent the construction of a one family home.”

After execution of the contract, plaintiff sought the issuance of a building permit for the construction of a one-family home on the property. The permit was denied by the building authorities of the Town of Huntington because of the refusal of the Suffolk County Health Department to approve the plan for a sanitary system submitted by the plaintiff. The Health Department’s refusal apparently was motivated by a desire to prevent building construction in the area of the property until installation of a sewer system required due to serious drainage problems.

Neither party has submitted a copy of the Huntington zoning ordinance, nor is it stated in which zoning district the property1 lies. Nevertheless, it is clear that it was not the “ zoning regulations and ordinances ’ ’ of the town which prevented the plaintiff from obtaining a building permit. A zoning ordinance is a legislative division of a community into areas or districts, in each of which only certain designated uses of land and buildings are permitted. *(Cleaver*v. *Board of Adjustment,*414 Pa. 367; see, also, *Barkmann*v. *Town of Hempstead,*268 App. Div. 785.) The Suffolk County Health Department’s refusal to approve individual sanitary systems in an area where it believes a sewer system should be installed does not constitute the prevention of the construction of a one-family home due to a zoning ordinance or zoning regulation of the Town of Huntington. The failure to obtain a building permit was not occasioned by a zoning restriction and therefore it does not fall within the ambit of the contractual provision on which plaintiff relies (see *Artstrong Homes*v. *Vasa,*23 Misc 2d 608; *Balodis*v. *Fallwood Park Homes,*54 Misc 2d 936).

The language of the contract is clear and unambiguous and the court will not make a new contract for the parties under the guise of interpreting the writing *(Friedman*v. *Handelman,*300 N. Y. 188). Nor is there any evidence of such a mistake in the contract as would require a court of equity to reform it *360by inserting a provision that the plaintiff be relieved of it in the event that a building permit is refused for reasons other than a zoning restriction *(Albany Hgts. Realty Co.*v. *Vogt,*182 App. Div. 736).

The motion is therefore granted.
Need to return call by / at/between and . Signature:

Project No.: 0317.01.005.510 Page 1 of 1

Project Name: DMR2011 CBI?

Yes

No

TELEPHONE CALL RECORD

Incoming

Outgoing

Date: 12/11/13 Time: 10:06 am

pm

Company Name: Jerritt Canyon Mine – Elko, NV ERG Staff Name: Julia Kolberg

Contact Name: John Barta Contact Phone Number: (775) 738-5600

General Subject: 2011 TRI Discharges

TOPICS DISCUSSED AND ACTION TAKEN

On December 11, 2013 at 10:06am I called John Barta (775-738-5600) and spoke with him regarding 2011 TRI 

Discharge data from his facility (Jerritt Canyon Mine). He requested to be sent an e-mail detailing the 

information that we are looking for. He provided his e-mail as jbarta@jerritt.com.

One December 16, 2013 at 1:47pm I called back to follow up and make sure that he had received the e-mail. 

He has forwarded it to the appropriate parties and will respond with an estimated date for when the information 

will be available.

On December 17, 2013 at 3:12pm John returned my call with their discharge representative, Rick. They stated 

that there was an error in the way that they reported- the metal concentrations were supposed to be in parts per 

million, but had not been divided by 1,000,000 and were a factor of six higher than they should have been.
RegulatoryEvaluationDocketNo.FAA-2006-25970DirectorateIdentifier:99-NE-12-ADJfyou/1/akechangestothevaluesinthetablebelow,youmustensurethetotalsupdateifthe:vdo110!,dick(orTab)intoandthenoutofthechangedcc!J.EstimatedCosts:-ActionCostsperProduct(e.g.,aircraft,engine,(e.g.,Inspection,propeller,appliance)Work-hoursLaborPartsCostTotalCostsNumberofTotalCostreplacement)(includecost(labor+u.s.forU.S.FleetDonotincludeonconditioncostshereaccess,testing,(@$85/hparts)Registeredandclose-up)our)ProductsCompressor...1:·1'.11inspection40.0$0I''J.I:·Ii34,I'"'il: i:"Compressor40.0•l'•li.li$40,0002replacementil1i.',!'.-:;.q-:Jil.iii"l•·.I'll"!,\J!l.iill1)·:!I11,1:(1ill!\),.1,1!1;,iiiIil.ti·:l.,;iJII;!1···.1ii.<J:I(,<IiiII''''IJ:,:,1•.,Jli;IiiIIii(l.....:;;;••.II!J,ti-:l.!.·.)![11.'',1li.IJi:·'·.II,jI::J,l_illit:·ill.-!'i!-:1!)!:(;..n:-·'1:·•:1li.!Ji:·.!I,,11,;1ii.IP.:.)"I''·'''',,!JI.i'II''ili•illiIJ!i•Ill•ll,t•:i'i.ll',i'·'i,ll":.-:1i!,lili.,'•''111:!1,l,lill:I,".ITheknownnumberofproductsincompliance:TotalCostsofcomplianceforU.S.fleet:$202,400Costscoveredunderwarranty((fknown)$On-ConditionCosts:ActionWork-hoursLaborcostPartsCostCostperProduct(e.g.,Inspection,(includeaccess,(@$85/hour)replacement)testing,andclose-up)•:,:II.....SpecialconsiderationsforEconomicAnalysis(UsethisfieldtoexplainanythingintheEstimatedCoststablethatwasassumedormightnotbeobvious.Thisfieldcanalsobeusedtaexplainwarrantycosts):ExecutiveOrder12866:CouldtheADbeconsidereda"significantregulatoryaction"?-YES'DNOD*Explanation:DOTRegulatoryPoliciesandProcedures:IstheADsignificant?·-YES'DNOD*Explanation:RegulatoryFlexibilityAct:WilltheADhaveasignificanteconomicimpactonasubstantialnumberofsmallentities?ExplainforeitheraYesorNoanswer.•YESDNODExplanation:IntrastateAviationinAlaska:ThisADcouldaffectintrastateaviationinAlaska.IsitappropriatetoincludespecificrequirementsforaircraftoperatedinAlaskawhereaviationmightbetheonlymodeoftransportation?YES'DNOD*Explanation:
Richard BURDETTE, Appellant(s)/petitioner(s), v. DREIA LLC, et al., Appellee(s)/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 3D17-1664

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

AUGUST 17, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
Jose FUENTES, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D17-1385

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed May 9, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Maxwell HENRY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-4969

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed May 2, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
EX PARTE Anthony MCCAA

CR-16-0709

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

June 9, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. denied.
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 99-4231

___________ Timothy M. White, * * Appellant, *

* v. * * Appeal from the United States Robert T. Rogers, Deputy Public * District Court for the Western Defender; Kenneth Elser, Deputy * District of Arkansas. Prosecuting Attorney; David S. * Clinger, Prosecuting Attorney; April * [UNPUBLISHED] M. Rye, Assistant Prosecuting * Attorney; Bill Mead, Police Officer, * Green Forest, Arkansas; Jeff Webb, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: June 21, 2000 Filed: June 29, 2000

___________ Before LOKEN, FAGG, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Timothy M. White appeals the district court's dismissal of White's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action arising from his arrest and prosecution in 1994. Having reviewed the record, we agree with the district court the defendant prosecutors were immune from-2-

suit for monetary damages, see Brodnicki v. City of Omaha , 75 F.3d 1261, 1266-67 (8thCir.), cert. denied , 519 U.S. 867 (1966), and White's public defender was not a state actor, see Polk

County v. Dodson , 454 U.S. 312, 325 (1981). We also agree White's action was time-barred. See A RK
. C ODE A NN
. § 16-56-105 (Michie 1994) (three-year

statute of limitations); Wilson v. Garcia , 471 U.S. 261, 280 (1985); O'Mara v. Dykema , 942 S.W.2d 854, 858 (Ark. 1997). We affirm the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47A(a). A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Jeff Vanderhurst v. Statoil Gulf Services, LLC

Appellate case number: 01

- 16

- 00461

- CV

Trial court case number: 2014

- 41304

Trial court: 55th District Court of Harris County

The record was due to be filed in this case on July 13, 2016. On August 18, 2016, the District Clerk filed a form, advising that they had notified counsel of the amount due for the clerk’s record, the clerk’s record was ready, and appellant had “made payment arrangements.” Although this notice stated that appellant had made payment arrangements, a notice issued that appellant had not paid for the clerk’s record and requested a response by September 16, 2016. No response was filed, but we lea rned that appellant’s counsel thought payment had been made. No

clerk’s record has ever been filed. On January 12, 2017, the district clerk filed a corrected notice indicating that appellant has not paid for the clerk’s record.

Accordingly, we order appel lant to provide proof of payment for the clerk’s record and

for the clerk’s record to be filed on or before February 8, 2017 , or the appeal will be dismissed.

See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 37.3((b); 42.3(b),(c).

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Harvey Brown

 Acting individually

Date: January 19, 2017