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

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

FORT WORTH 

NO. 02-17-00022-CV 

M.C., Individually and as Next Friend 

of J.C., a Minor; E.P., Individually 

and as Next Friend of A.P., a Minor; 

and each on behalf of the Estate of 

J.G., Decedent 

v. 

Pantego Camp Thurman, Inc. 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§

From the 17th District Court 

of Tarrant County (017-269875-13) 

February 22, 2018 

Opinion by Chief Justice Sudderth

JUDGMENT 

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of 

the trial court is affirmed. 

It is further ordered that Appellants shall pay all of the costs of this appeal, 

for which let execution issue. 

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Bonnie Sudderth 

 Chief Justice Bonnie Sudderth
Robert J. VESCI, Petitioner, v. DITECH FINANCIAL, LLC, f/k/a Green Tree Servicing, LLC, Respondent.

Case No. 2D18-1074

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed August 31, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
Case 22-12474-LMI Doc 34 Filed 06/10/22 Page 1 of 3
Case 22-12474-LMI Doc 34 Filed 06/10/22 Page 2 of 3
Case 22-12474-LMI Doc 34 Filed 06/10/22 Page 3 of 3
AD Economic Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2013-0020 Directorate ID: 2010-SW-107-AD

Helicopter Model: Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH Model MBB-BK 117 C-2 Helicopters

Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 108 Helicopters in the US Registry.

Reason: The actions of this AD are intended to prevent incorrect rigging results of the powerboosted control system, which could impair freedom of movement of the upper controls and 

subsequent reduced control of the helicopter.

Costs:

Parts per Helicopter $0

Labor per Helicopter

(8 work-hour x $85/workhour for the inspection)$680

Other (Explain)

Total Cost per Helicopter $680

Total US Fleet Cost $73,440

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No ()

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No ()

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

Yes ( ) No ()

Project Engineer: Jim Grigg
Exhibit 99.1
                                 ------------

                                      11
<PAGE>

COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP


                             OFFICERS' CERTIFICATE
                    ANNUAL STATEMENT OF THE MASTER SERVICER


                                  CWMBS, INC.
                    CHL MORTGAGE PASS THROUGH TRUST 2001-28
              MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2001-28


     The undersigned do hereby certify that they are each an officer of
Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, LP (the "Master Servicer") and do hereby
further certify pursuant to Section 3.16 of the Pooling and Servicing
Agreement for the above-captioned Series (the "Agreement") that:

     (i) A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the
     preceding calendar year and of the performance of the Master Servicer
     under the Agreement has been made under our supervision; and

     (ii) To the best of our knowledge, based on such review, the Master
     Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement
     throughout such year.




/s/ Thomas K. McLaughlin                             Dated: March 25, 2002

THOMAS K. MCLAUGHLIN
MANAGING DIRECTOR AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER



/s/ David A. Spector                                 Dated: March 25, 2002

DAVID A. SPECTOR
MANAGING DIRECTOR



                                      12
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5559 

To amend section 1206 of the Pathway for SGR Reform Act of 2013 to 

clarify the application of rules on the calculation of hospital length 

of stay to certain moratorium-excepted long-term care hospitals 

(LTCHs). 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 22, 2016 

Mr. SMITH of Missouri (for himself and Mr. CLAY) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend section 1206 of the Pathway for SGR Reform 

Act of 2013 to clarify the application of rules on the 

calculation of hospital length of stay to certain moratorium-excepted long-term care hospitals (LTCHs). 

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

3 SECTION 1. CLARIFYING APPLICATION OF RULES ON THE 

4 CALCULATION OF HOSPITAL LENGTH OF 

5 STAY TO CERTAIN MORATORIUM-EXCEPTED 

6 LTCHS. 

7 Section 1206(a)(3) of the Pathway for SGR Reform 

8 Act of 2013 (division B of Public Law 113–67; 42 U.S.C. 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5559 IH

1 1395ww note) is amended by adding at the end the fol2 lowing new subparagraph: 

3 ‘‘(C) CLARIFYING APPLICATION TO CER4 TAIN ADDITIONAL MORATORIUM-EXCEPTED

5 LTCHS.—Subparagraph (A) shall also apply to 

6 a long-term care hospital described in section 

7 114(d)(7) of the Medicare, Medicaid, and 

8 SCHIP Extension Act of 2007 (42 U.S.C. 

9 1395ww note).’’. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with BILLS
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Atmospheres

Filters

              - science_faqs(4)
              - science_science(188)
              - products_data(130)
              - products_maps(16)
              - products_publications(2005)
              - products_software(7)
              - products_web_tools(8)
              - multimedia_audio(82)
              - multimedia_audio-141766(78)
              - multimedia_audio-141767(4)
              - multimedia_before_after(5)
              - multimedia_image(196)
              - multimedia_image-141769(1)
              - multimedia_image-141770(4)
              - multimedia_image-141771(145)
              - multimedia_image-141772(4)
              - multimedia_image-141774(2)
              - multimedia_image-141775(22)
              - multimedia_image-141776(16)
              - multimedia_image-204460(2)
              - (-)multimedia_slideshow(2)
              - multimedia_video(228)
              - multimedia_video-149194(87)
              - multimedia_video-149195(54)
              - multimedia_video-149196(15)
              - multimedia_video-149197(15)
              - multimedia_video-149198(13)
              - multimedia_video-149225(2)
              - documents_file(10)
              - documents_file-149204(1)
              - documents_file-149213(1)
              - documents_file-149214(4)
              - documents_file-149218(1)
              - documents_file-149220(1)
              - documents_file-149222(1)
              - news_news-149245(2)
              - news_news-149246(2)
              - news_news-149248(5)
              - news_news-149249(2)
              - news_news-149250(7)
              - news_newsletters(2)
              - news_other_news(36)
              - connect_staff_profiles(23)
              - other_basic-37(3)
              - other_basic-42(16)

## By Location

              - colorado(1)
              - idaho(1)
              - wyoming(1)

## By Year

slideshow        December 22, 2022        Desert, aquatic, prairie, forest, riparian, tundra, and sagebrush plants

slideshow        September 23, 2021        Rocky Mountain Regional Snowpack Chemistry Photo Gallery
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

EDWARD LOWE BAKER, JR.,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 93 WAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 18th day of October, 2022, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
AD Economic Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2011-1285 Directorate ID: 2010-SW-073-AD

Helicopter Model: Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH Model BO-105A, BO-105C, BO-105LS A-1, 

BO-105LS A-3, and BO-105S Helicopters

Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 97 Helicopters in the US Registry.

Reason: The actions specified by this proposed AD are intended to detect debonding of the main 

rotor blade erosion protective shell which could lead to an unbalanced main rotor, high 

vibrations, damage to the tail boom or tail rotor, and loss of control of the helicopter.

Costs:

Parts per Helicopter $114,182 to replace the main rotor blade

Labor per Helicopter

(1 x $85/work-hour for the 

inspection)

(2 x $85/work-hour to replace 

the main rotor blade)

$85

$170

Other (Explain)

Total Cost per Helicopter $85 for the inspection; $114,352 to replace the main 

rotor blade

Total US Fleet Cost $8,245 for the inspection; we have no way to 

determine how many operators will need to replace 

the main rotor blade.

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No ()

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No ()

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

Yes ( ) No ()

Project Engineer: Jim Grigg
EX-10.73ACS-UoR










Exhibit 10.73
Amendment One (1) to Task Order One (1)
Centralized Financial Aid Processing  
Affiliated Computer Services, LLC and University of the Rockies, LLC




This Amendment One (1) (the “Amendment”) is made, as of the dates set forth below, as an Amendment to Task Order One (1) (“TO1”) dated as of December 31, 2008 and issued pursuant to the General Services Agreement (the “Agreement”) dated December 31, 2008 by and between Affiliated Computer Services, LLC (“ACS”) and University of the Rockies, LLC (“Customer”).  Customer and ACS are sometimes referred to individually as a “Party” or together as “Parties”.


The purpose of this Amendment is to document the understanding of the Parties as it relates to the mutually agreed upon terms of the 2012 Task Order One (1) contract renewal year.


The Parties hereby agree to amend Task Order One (1) as follows:


		
	1.
	Section 3.1 Service Fees.  Effective January 2, 2012, Section 3.1 will be replaced in its entirety with the following language:




ACS will provide the Services (as documented in Section I) based upon the following service categories (“Actions”):


Call Center 
		
	▪
	Inbound Calls 


		
	▪
	Outbound Accounts Worked 


		
	▪
	Emails 




Transactional Processing
		
	▪
	Imaging


		
	▪
	ISIR Review (Includes initial ISIR review and Verification/C-code/Conflicting Information Review)


		
	▪
	New Student Certification


		
	▪
	Renewal Student Certification


		
	▪
	Revision Certification


		
	▪
	Disbursement Review 


		
	▪
	R2T4 (Refund)Calculations 


  ACS will bill monthly for each Action based upon the below Tiered Unit Pricing table:


[***]
[***]
[***]


		
	2.
	ACS and Customer will continue to work diligently and in good faith to agree upon the terms and conditions for a new Agreement to replace the existing Agreement.


















[***] Confidential portions of this document have been redacted and filed separately with the Commission.

Page 1 of 2










Amendment One (1) to Task Order One (1)
Centralized Financial Aid Processing  
Affiliated Computer Services, LLC and University of the Rockies, LLC




		
	3.
	Except as expressly amended hereby, the terms and provisions of the Agreement shall be and remain in full force and effect are hereby ratified and confirmed as originally written, and shall be legally binding between the Parties with respect to all services provided under the Agreement, as amended hereby.






IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the Parties has executed this Amendment One (1) by the signatures of their respective authorized representatives.


	
		
	ACCEPTED AND AGREED:


Affiliated Computer Services, LLC




By:  /s/ Richard K. Schnacker


Name:   Richard K. Schnacker


Title:  Group President


Date:  January 30, 2012
	ACCEPTED AND AGREED:


University of the Rockies, LLC,
a Colorado limited liability company




By: Bridgepoint Education, Inc.,
      a Delaware corporation
      its Sole Member
     
      By:  /s/ Daniel J. Devine


      Name:  Daniel Devine


      Title:  EVP/CFO


Date:  January 26, 2012



































Page 2 of 2
Rolando FERNANDEZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D18-1454

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed August 8, 2018

Rolando Fernandez, in proper person.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before SCALES, LUCK and LINDSEY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *See**Hernandez v. State*, 124 So.3d 757, 759 (Fla. 2012) ("[W]e also hold that the United States Supreme Court's holding in *Padilla [v. Kentucky*, 559 U.S. 356, 130 S.Ct. 1473, 176 L.Ed.2d 284 (2010) ] does not apply retroactively.").
Kim'wasia J. ANDERSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-1052

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

August 15, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
AFS-15-3962-E April 4, 2016

Exemption No. 16034 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2015-3858

Mr. Marvin Baird Director of Operations Nicholas Services, LLC

P.O. Box 8889 Columbus, MS 39705

Dear Mr. Baird:

This letter is to inform you that we have denied your petition for exemption. It transmits our decision and explains its basis.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated September 29, 2015, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of Nicholas Services, LLC (Nicholas Air) for an exemption from § 61.51(f)(2) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) to the extent necessary to allow Nicholas Air to assign a second-in-command (SIC) in an aircraft that otherwise does not require one by type certificate.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition in the Federal Register because this is not a precedent-setting petition, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Nicholas Air.

The FAA issued a denial of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to those presented in your petition. In Denial of Exemption No. 9770, as amended (copy enclosed), the FAA noted that Ameriflight did not require an exemption to place a second pilot for safety purposes. Ameriflight requested the same relief to allow the assignment of a SIC during a flight that otherwise does not require a SIC and allow that SIC to log that flight time pursuant to a certificate or rating.

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that—2

 they do not differ materially from those presented by the petitioner in the enclosed Denial of Exemption No. 9770, as amended;

 the reasons stated by the FAA for denying the enclosed Denial of Exemption No. 9770, as amended, also apply to the situation you present; and

 a grant of exemption would not be in the public interest.

Our Decision

In consideration of the foregoing, I find that a grant of exemption would not be in the public interest. Therefore, pursuant to the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. §§ 106(f), 40113 and 44701, delegated to me by the Administrator, I hereby deny the petition of Nicholas Services, LLC for an exemption from 14 CFR § 61.51(f)(2).

Sincerely,

//s//

John S. Duncan Director, Flight Standards Service

Enclosure Exemption No. 9770C
Halogenated Sorbent SupplyDOE/NETL Mercury ControlTechnology R&D ReviewNORIT Americas, Inc.World Leader in activated carbon technologyWhat is activated carbon?•Any of a number of carbonaceousmaterials treated with heat and steam tocreate a highly porous matrix capable ofadsorbing or entrapping contaminants outof a liquid or gas stream.How is Activated Carbon Produced?•Primary sizing of the raw material•Removal of volatiles/Charring•Activation/Reaction with Steam(Marshall-5 Kilns)•Impregnation•Final sizing and PackagingPORE VOLUME•Total volume of allpores inside a particleof activated carbon inml/g•Calculated fromdensity dataPore StructureAmerenUE Meramec PlantDOE Cooperative Agreement DE-FC26-03NT41986Unit Capacity140 MWCoalPRBMercury Content:0.04 –0.1 ppm-dryChlorine Content:7-35 ppm-dryNOx Control –SOFA, LNBSO2Control –Compliance CoalParticulate Control –CSESPParametric Results –Treated Carbon0102030405060708090100051015Sorbent InjectionRate(lb/MMacf)

Hg Remo val E f f i ci en cy ( % )DARCO HgDARCO Hg-LHLong-Term ResultsProposed LimitInletOutlet05101510/14/0410/21/0410/28/0411/04/0411/11/0411/18/04

Hg Emi ssi ons (lb/TBtu)02040608010012014016010/14/0410/21/0410/28/0411/04/0411/11/0411/18/04

Load (MW)00.511.522.533.54 SO 2 (lb/MBTU)SO2LoadNORIT’sCommitment to the FutureProduct Development•Norit has the industry standard DARCO Hgactivated carbon for many applications.•Within the last year, developed the highlyeffective DARCO Hg-LH for the sub-bituminousPowder River Basin and North Dakota Lignitecoals, thought to be difficult to treat.•In development currently on products for thedifficult high acid gas applications, and will betesting at locations this year.Will Activated Carbon Be Available?•Worldwide demand growing at 4%py•Current installed capacity at 1.6 billion pounds–Installed capacity growing with demand•USA and China account for 50% of worldcapacity•Industry continually demonstrates capacityadditions to meet market demand.•Total NORIT volume available in halogenatedform.9YES!NORIT Americas’ Preparationfor Mercury Removal•Raw materials must be procured–Lignite reserves identified capable of producing 126billion pounds of carbon–Quality requirements tested and established–Pricing established–Ready to begin permitting•Capacity investments must be made–Plant designs engineered–Stage 1: expand existing capacity in OK, TX–Stage 2: build new facilities•Potential properties identified
Ryan Lee STRODER, Individually, etc. v. HILCORP ENERGY COMPANY, et al.

NO. 2018-C-0723

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

September 14, 2018

*480Denied.

GUIDRY, J., would grant.
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION**

Douglas C. Wride,Chief Financial Officer of Websense, Inc., hereby certifies pursuant to therequirement set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,as amended, (the “Exchange Act”) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 ofthe United States Code (18 U.S.C. § 1350) that, to the best of his knowledge:

1.               TheQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Websense, Inc. for the quarterly period endedJune 30, 2006 (the “Quarterly Report”) fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act.

2.               Theinformation contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of Websense, Inc.for the period covered by the Quarterly Report.

Dated:  August 8, 2006
|   | By:    | /s/ DOUGLAS C. WRIDE    |
|--------|--------|-------------------------|
|   |   | Douglas C. Wride        |
|   |   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

*A signed original of this written statement has beenprovided to Websense, Inc. and will be retained by Websense, Inc. and furnishedto the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.  This written statement accompanies the Form10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission, and is not incorporated by reference into any filing of the Companyunder the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, irrespectiveof any general incorporation language contained in such filing.

 

----
Opinion issued July 27, 2023

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-23-00264-CV

———————————

JESSICA JIMENEZ, Appellant

V.

ROBERT BERLETH, Appellee

On Appeal from the 458th District Court

Fort Bend County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 22-DCV-292029

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Jessica Jimenez, has neither paid the required fees nor established 

indigence for purposes of appellate costs. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5, 20.1; see also TEX.

GOV’T CODE §§ 51.207, 51.941(a), 101.041; Fees Charged in the Supreme Court, in 

Civil Cases in the Courts of Appeals, and Before the Judicial Panel on Multi-District 
2

Litigation, Misc. Docket No. 15-9158 (Tex. Aug. 28, 2015). Further, appellant has 

not paid or made arrangements to pay the fee for preparing the clerk’s record. See

TEX.R. APP. P. 37.3(b). After being notified that this appeal was subject to dismissal, 

appellant did not respond. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5, 42.3(b), (c).

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for nonpayment of all required fees and 

for want of prosecution. We dismiss any pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Goodman, Landau, and Rivas-Molloy.
STATE EX REL. Eddie Lee JACKSON v. STATE of Louisiana

No. 2017-KH-1135

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

September 21, 2018

**ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF CADDO**

PER CURIAM:

Denied. The application was not timely filed in the district court, and relator fails to carry his burden to show that an exception applies. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8 ; *State ex rel. Glover v. State* , 93-2330 (La. 9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189.

Relator has now fully litigated his application for post-conviction relief in state court. Similar to federal habeas relief, *see*28 U.S.C. § 2244, Louisiana post-conviction procedure envisions the filing of a second or successive application only under the narrow circumstances provided in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4 and within the limitations period as set out in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Notably, the legislature in 2013 La. Acts 251 amended that article to make the procedural bars against successive filings mandatory. Relator's claims have now been fully litigated in accord with La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.6, and this denial is final. Hereafter, unless he can show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive application applies, relator has exhausted his right to state collateral review. The district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.

CRICHTON, J., recused.
A.S.C., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Joseph SEEBER, Superintendent, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-3042

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

August 09, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5452 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5452

   To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permit individuals 
  eligible for Indian Health Service assistance to qualify for health 
                           savings accounts.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 10, 2016

Mr. Moolenaar (for himself, Mr. Paulsen, Mrs. Noem, and Mr. Blumenauer) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                             Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permit individuals 
  eligible for Indian Health Service assistance to qualify for health 
                           savings accounts.

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

SECTION 1. INDIVIDUALS ELIGIBLE FOR INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE ASSISTANCE 
              NOT DISQUALIFIED FROM HEALTH SAVINGS ACCOUNTS.

    (a) In General.--Section 223(c)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
                    ``(D) Special rule for individuals eligible for 
                assistance under indian health service programs.--For 
                purposes of subparagraph (A)(ii), an individual shall 
                not be treated as covered under a health plan described 
                in such subparagraph merely because the individual 
                receives hospital care or medical services under a 
                medical care program of the Indian Health Service or of 
                a tribal organization.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2016.
                                 <all>
```