alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 ... S eeTex. R. A pp. P. 47. 4. 

# COURT OFAPPEALS SE CONDDIS T RICTOFT EXAS

FORT W ORTH NO. 2 - 08 - 28 1- CR F AB I AN L E E GR E E N J R . AP P E L L ANT
V . THE STATE OF TE XA S STATE

----- ----- FR O M THE 2 13 DI STRI CT CO URT O F TARRA NT CO UN TY TH

----- ----- 

### M E M ORANDU M OP I NI ON 1 

### AND J UDGME NT

----- ----- W e h a v e c o n s i d e re d th e “ A p p e l l a n t’sM o ti o n T o W i th d ra w T h e A p p e a l .” T h e m o ti o n c o m p l i e sw i th ru l e 4 2 .2 (a ) o f th e r u l e s o f a p p e l l a te p ro c e d u re . Tex. R. A pp. P. 4 2 .2 (a ). N o d e c i s i o n o f th i sc o u rt h a v i n g b e e n d e l i v e re d b e fo re
w e re c e i v e d th i sm o ti o n , w e g ra n t th e m o ti o n a n d d i s m i s sth e a p p e a l . S ee Tex. R. A pp. P. 4 2 .2 (a ), 4 3 .2 (f). P E R C U R I A M PA N EL: LI V I N G STO N , D A U PH I N O T, an d HO LM A N , JJ. DO NO T P UBLI SH Tex. R. A pp. P. 47. 2( b)DEL I VERE D: Dec e m be r18, 2008
F E D E R A L D E P O S I T I N S U R A N C E C O R P O R A T I O N

Annua

R

2 0 0 8
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 101 (Thursday, May 25, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 27794]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12853]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
[TA-W-30,829]


Lockheed Fort Worth Company, a Division of Lockheed Corporation, 
Department 73, Fort Worth, Texas; Notice of Termination of 
Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, an investigation 
was initiated on March 20, 1995 in response to a worker petition which 
was filed on behalf of workers and former workers at Department 73 of 
Lockheed Fort Worth Company, a division of Lockheed Corporation, 
located in Fort Worth, Texas (TA-W-30,829).
    Workers at Department 73 of Lockheed Fort Worth Company, a division 
of Lockheed Corporation, located in Fort Worth, Texas will be certified 
under a revised determination (TA-W-30,485). Consequently, further 
investigation in this case would serve no purpose, and the 
investigation has been terminated.

    Signed at Washington, D.C. this 17th day of May 1995.
Victor J. Trunzo,
Program Manager, Policy and Reemployment Services, Office of Trade 
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 95-12853 Filed 5-24-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
Dominic JETER, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 13-6813.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 18, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

JOAN GORCOS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) CAUSE NO. 2:15-CV-84 

)

MICHAEL FRYZEL, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Findings, Report and

Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)&(C) filed on October 17, 2017 (“Report and

Recommendation”). (DE #175.) More than 14 days have passed, and

there is no objection to the Report and Recommendation.1 See

Willis v. Caterpillar, Inc., 199 F.3d 902, 904 (7th Cir. 1999)

(explaining that the failure to file a timely objection will result

in the waiver of the right to challenge a report and

recommendation). Therefore, upon due consideration, the Court

hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (DE #175). 

Accordingly, the Court:

(1) GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the Agreed Motion to

Enforce Settlement Agreement of Defendants Frederick Frego, Stephen

1

 Defendants initially filed a partial objection to the Report and

Recommendation, arguing that the denial of the request for sanctions and attorney

fees was in error. (DE #176.) However, Defendants later withdrew that request

both via motion and via notice. (DE #177 & DE #178.) To the extent that Court

action is required on the withdrawl, the motion (DE #177) is GRANTED. 
Kil, Town of St. John, James Turturillo, and Michael Fryzel (DE

#160) as is set forth more fully in the Report and Recommendation; 

(2) DENIES as MOOT the Motion for Expedited Hearing Date (DE

#167);

(3) DENIES as MOOT the Supplemental Motion for Expedited

Hearing Date (DE #169);

(4) DECLARES that the settlement agreement of August 8, 2017,

was entered into knowingly and voluntarily, is fully enforceable,

and, in particular, does not include a mutual release of claims;

(5) ORDERS Plaintiff to execute the document found at Exhibit

A of Defendant’s Motion (DE #160), which memorializes the already

enforceable settlement agreement;

(6) DENIES Defendants’ request for an award of attorney fees;

and 

(7) ORDERS the parties to file dismissal paperwork with the

Court by December 12, 2017. 

DATED: November 28, 2017 /s/RUDY LOZANO, Judge

United States District Court

2
# L_2018189EN.01000201.xml

| 26.7.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 189/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.7.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 189/2

---

COUNCIL DECISION (EU) 2018/1047

of 16 July 2018

on the signing, on behalf of the Union, of the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Singapore, of the other part

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 207 and 212, in conjunction with Article 218(5) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 25 November 2004, the Council authorised the Commission to negotiate a Partnership and Cooperation Agreement with the Republic of Singapore (‘the Agreement’). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 25 November 2004, the Council authorised the Commission to negotiate a Partnership and Cooperation Agreement with the Republic of Singapore (‘the Agreement’).

| (2) | The negotiations were concluded and the Agreement was initialled on 14 October 2013. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The negotiations were concluded and the Agreement was initialled on 14 October 2013.

| (3) | The Agreement should be signed, subject to its conclusion at a later date. It is accompanied by a Side Letter, forming an integral part of the Agreement, which should be signed at the same time as the Agreement, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The Agreement should be signed, subject to its conclusion at a later date. It is accompanied by a Side Letter, forming an integral part of the Agreement, which should be signed at the same time as the Agreement,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The signing on behalf of the Union of the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Singapore, of the other part, and of the Side Letter attached to the Agreement is hereby authorised, subject to the conclusion of the said Agreement (1).

Article 2

The President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the Agreement and the Side Letter attached to the Agreement on behalf of the Union.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on the day following that of its adoption.

Done at Brussels, 16 July 2018.

For the Council

The President

F. MOGHERINI

---

(1)  The text of the Agreement will be published together with the decision on its conclusion.

1

---
Corey E. JOHNSON, petitioner, v. Marie VARGO, Warden.

No. 12-10005.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 9, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Eddie Ostiago, Appellant.

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Rothwax, J.), rendered on December 8, 1983, unanimously affirmed. Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted. *(See, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Saunders, 52*AD2d 833.) We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous points which could be raised on this appeal. Concur — Sandler, J. P., Asch, Fein and Milonas, JJ.
Mohammed Khalil GHALI, aka Mohammed Ghali, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-9507.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 29, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997             DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-30-1997             MAR-30-1996
<CASH>                                           1,923                   2,319
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,984                   3,280
<ALLOWANCES>                                       145                     128
<INVENTORY>                                      3,244                   3,175
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 9,704                   9,295
<PP&E>                                           2,160                   2,096
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,743                   1,627
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  10,392                  10,022
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,112                   3,572
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               99                     103
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                             0                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                       6,096                   6,077
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    10,392                  10,022
<SALES>                                          5,457                   5,859
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,457                   5,859
<CGS>                                            3,423                   3,518
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,893                   1,831
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   9                       5
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    132                     505
<INCOME-TAX>                                        53                     202
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 79                     303
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                        79                     303
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .01                     .03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .01                     .03
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

FORT WAYNE DIVISION 

RENE J. FEASBY 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

INQUEST HEALTH SYSTEM, P.C., 

 Defendant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No. 1:14-CV-069 JD 

ORDER

Now before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion Seeking Entry of Agreed Judgment. 

[DE 22]. In light of the parties’ agreement, the Court GRANTS the parties’ Joint Motion and 

DIRECTS the Clerk to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff, Rene J. Feasby, and against 

Defendant, Inquest Health System, P.C., in the amount of $13,500.00, inclusive of any attorneys’ 

fees, litigation costs, and expenses. 

 SO ORDERED. 

 ENTERED: January 27, 2015 

 /s/ JON E. DEGUILIO 

 Judge 

 United States District Court 

USDC IN/ND case 1:14-cv-00069-JD-SLC document 23 filed 01/27/15 page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1768 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1768

To amend the provision of law establishing the Presidential 9/11 Heroes 
Medals of Valor to make certain technical corrections to carry out the 
                        intent of the provision.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 21, 2005

  Mr. Fossella (for himself and Mr. Crowley) introduced the following 
    bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the provision of law establishing the Presidential 9/11 Heroes 
Medals of Valor to make certain technical corrections to carry out the 
                        intent of the provision.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That subsection (d) of 
section 124 (31 U.S.C. 5111 note) of division B of Public Law 108-447 
is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (2), by striking ``with the Secretary of 
        the Treasury for the Secretary to prepare and strike, on a 
        reimbursable basis,'' and inserting ``for striking''; and
            (2) by striking paragraph (3).
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1725 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1725

              To suspend temporarily the duty on Chloral.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 20, 2005

 Mrs. Capito introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
              To suspend temporarily the duty on Chloral.

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

SECTION 1. CHLORAL.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.05.70      Trichloroacetaldhy  Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                         de (CAS No. 75-87-                                                 31/2008
                         6) (provided for
                         in subheading
                         2913.00.50)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 103 (Tuesday, May 30, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 28165]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12941]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------


DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Extension of Public Comment Period on the Draft 2(a)(ii) Wild and 
Scenic River Study Report for the Wallowa River, Oregon

AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.

ACTION: Extension of public comment period.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The National Park Service is extending the public review and 
comment period by 15 days for the draft study report on designating the 
Wallowa River, Oregon, into the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.

DATES: Comments must be postmarked by June 22, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the draft report are available for public 
inspection at: National Park Service, 909 First Avenue, 4th Floor, 
Seattle, Washington 98104-1060; National Park Service, 800 North 
Capitol Street, NW., Suite 490, Washington, DC 20013-7127; and U.S. 
Forest Service, Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, 1550 Dewey Avenue, 
Baker City, Oregon 97814. Hours of availability are between 8:30 a.m. 
and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. Additional 
copies for review are located in the Baker City, Elgin, Enterprise, 
Joseph, and La Grande, Oregon, libraries during normal hours of 
operation. Copies of the draft report may be obtained from Dan Haas, 
National Park Service, at the address below. Comments should be 
directed to the National Park Service, Pacific Northwest Regional 
Office, attention Dan Haas at the address below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Haas, National Park Service, 
Pacific Northwest Regional Office, 909 First Avenue, Seattle, 
Washington 98104-1060, (206) 220-4120.

    Dated: May 17, 1995.
William C. Walters,
Interim Deputy, Field Director, National Park Service, Pacific West 
Field Area.
[FR Doc. 95-12941 Filed 5-26-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-70-P
Robert C. MORRIS, petitioner, v. Mike McALLESTER, et al.

No. 12-10082.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 9, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Exhibit 99.1
 REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
     
  1




---



##### 



WILLIAMS PIPELINE GP LLC
 CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET
December 31, 2008
 (In thousands)ASSETSCurrent assets:Cash and cash equivalents
    
    $
    7,760Prepaid expense
    
    
    184Total current assets
    
    
    7,944Investment in Northwest Pipeline GP
    
    
    414,069Total assets
    
    $
    422,013LIABILITIES AND OWNERS EQUITYCurrent liabilities:Accounts payable:Trade
    
    $
    671Affiliate
    
    
    424Total current liabilities
    
    
    1,095Minority interest
    
    
    335,226Contingent liabilities and commitmentsOwners Equity:Owners equity
    
    
    92,305Notes receivable  affiliate
    
    
    (1
    )Accumulated other comprehensive loss
    
    
    (6,612
    )Total owners equity
    
    
    85,692Total liabilities and owners equity
    
    $
    422,013
  2




---



##### 



WILLIAMS PIPELINE GP LLC
 NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET
 Note 1. Nature of Operations
    Note 2. Summary of Significant Accounting Policies
 Basis of Presentation.
 Use of Estimates.
 Investments.
 Impairment of Investments.
 Income Taxes.
 Cash and Cash Equivalents.
 3




---



##### 



WILLIAMS PIPELINE GP LLC
 NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET (Continued)
 Note 3. Credit Facilities
  Note 4. Related Party Transactions
  Note 5. Recent Accounting Standards
   Note 6. Equity Investments
  Williams Pipeline Partners L.P. (100%)
 Years ended December 31,2008
    
    2007(Predecessor)(Thousands of dollars)Balance Sheet Data (at period end):Total assets
    
    $
    422,013
    
    
    $
    416,655Total Partners equity
    
    
    420,918
    
    
    
    414,966
 4




---



##### 



WILLIAMS PIPELINE GP LLC
 NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET (Continued)
 Note 7. Owners Equity
  GeneralQuarterly Distribution Target Amount (per unit)
    
    Unitholders
    
    PartnerMinimum quarterly distribution of $0.2875
    
    
    98
    %
    
    
    2
    %Up to $0.330625
    
    
    98
    
    
    
    2Above $0.330625 up to $0.359375
    
    
    85
    
    
    
    15Above $0.359375 up to $0.431250
    
    
    75
    
    
    
    25Above $0.431250
    
    
    50
    
    
    
    50
 5
USDC IN/ND case 2:15-cv-00300-RL-PRC   document 5   filed 07/27/15   page 1 of 5

USDC IN/ND case 2:15-cv-00300-RL-PRC   document 5   filed 07/27/15   page 2 of 5

USDC IN/ND case 2:15-cv-00300-RL-PRC   document 5   filed 07/27/15   page 3 of 5

USDC IN/ND case 2:15-cv-00300-RL-PRC   document 5   filed 07/27/15   page 4 of 5

USDC IN/ND case 2:15-cv-00300-RL-PRC   document 5   filed 07/27/15   page 5 of 5
Edward JONES, petitioner, v. CALIFORNIA.

No. 12-8847.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 22, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of California denied.
#### BINGER CO. v. BLUMBERG et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

May 9, 1912.)

Sales (§ 81*)—Contracts—Performance—‘‘At Once.”

A contract for 300 signs, to be used by the buyer’s salesmen for distribution among the trade, 150 to be delivered “at once,” and 150 in three-months from the date of the order, calls for a prompt delivery of 150, and an offer to deliver six weeks after the making of the contract comes too late; the words “at once” contemplating the making of a delivery with greater celerity than is ordinarily comprehended by a reasonable time.

[Ed. Note.—Eor other cases, see Sales, Cent. Dig. §§ 217-223; Dec. Dig. § 81* . ■

For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, vol. 1, pp. 610, 611.]

Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, First District.

Action by the Binger Company against Isaac Blumberg and another. From a judgment of the Municipal Court of the City of New York, rendered for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Reversed, and new trial ordered.

Argued April term, 1912, before SEABURY, GUY, and GERARD, JJ.

I. Gainsburg, of New York City, for appellants.

Nathaniel Phillips, of New York City, for respondent.

*

For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, *&*Rep’r Indexes

SEABURY, J.

Plaintiff sued to recover $300, alleged to be due for services rendered in making 300 signs, which the plaintiff claimed it completed and offered to defendants, and which the latter, refused to accept. The signs were made under a contract which provided:

> “150 signs to be delivered *at once*and balance in three months from date of order.”

The contract was dated March 3, 1911. The plaintiff offered to deliver the goods bn April 6, 1911. The defendants refused to accept them, saying:

> “It’s too late now, as my man is out on the road.”

The evidence showed that these signs were to be used by the defendants’ salesman for distribution among the Eastern trade. The contract specified that the delivery should be made “at once.” The plaintiff did not establish his right to recover by showing that he offered to deliver six weeks after the contract was made. The contract, by using the words “at once,” contemplated that delivery should *1116be promptly made, or that it should be made with greater celerity than is ordinarily comprehended by a reasonable time. Lewis v. Hojer, 16 N. Y. Supp. 534; Tobias v. Lissberger, 105 N. Y. 410, 12 N. E. 13, 59 Am. Rep. 509; Hirsch v. Annin, 28 Misc. Rep. 228, 58 N. Y. Supp. 1019.

Judgment reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellants to abide the event. All concur.
Sergio CURIEL, Sr., petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-9290.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.