alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-08-00605-CR

NO. 03-08-00606-CR

Heather Ledisky, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 147TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NOS. D-1-DC-08-202465 & D-1-DC-08-907240, HONORABLE WILFORD FLOWERS, 

JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant Heather Ledisky has filed a pro se motion to withdraw her notices of

appeal, explaining that she does not wish to pursue her appeals. We grant the motion and dismiss

both appeals.

___________________________________________

David Puryear, Justice

Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Puryear and Pemberton

Dismissed on Appellant’s Motion

Filed: December 19, 2008

Do Not Publish
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 125 (Thursday, June 28, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 34458]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-16386]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[WY-920-00-1320-EL, WYW151133]


Belle Ayr 2000 Coal Lease Application, WY

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of Availability (NOA) of Decision Record.

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

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) announces the availability 
of the Decision Record for the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the 
Belle Ayr 2000 Coal Lease Application. That EA analyzes the potential 
impacts of leasing and mining Federal coal on lands in Campbell County, 
WY. BLM's decisions was to approve the Selected Alternative, which 
analyzed the impacts of offering for competitive lease sale 
approximately 243.61 acres containing an estimated 29 million tons of 
in-place Federal coal.
    BLM received six written comments during the two scoping periods on 
the Belle Ayr 2000 lease application. These comments are on file in the 
Casper and Cheyenne offices of the BLM. Three written comments were 
received on the draft EA, and these were included, with written 
responses, in the final EA. The transcript of the formal hearing is on 
file in the Casper and Cheyenne Offices of the BLM. Three written 
comments were received on the final EA. All comments that were received 
during the process were considered in the preparation of the draft and 
final EA's, and in the Decision Record.
    BLM Notices of Availability for the draft EA and for the final EA 
for this project were published in the Federal Register on December 29, 
2000 (65 FR 83076), and on April 24, 2001 (66 FR 20681), respectively.

DATES: The Decision Record was signed by the Acting BLM WY State 
Director on June 6, 2001. Parties in interest have the right to appeal 
that decision pursuant to 43 CFR part 4, within thirty days from the 
date of publication of this NOA in the Federal Register. The Decision 
Record contains instructions on taking appeals to the Interior Board of 
Land Appeals.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melvin Schlagel, phone: (307) 775-
6257. Copies of the Decision Record may be obtained from the following 
BLM offices: Casper Field Office, 2987 Prospector Drive, Casper, 
Wyoming 82604, 307-261-7600; and Wyoming State Office, 5353 Yellowstone 
Road, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82009, 307-775-6256.

    Dated: June 25, 2001.
Phillip C. Perlewitz,
Chief, Branch of Solid Minerals.
[FR Doc. 01-16386 Filed 6-27-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-22-M
James Roy SYLVESTER, Jr., petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-7222.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 23, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
Jerry WILSON, aka Steve Vic Parker, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-7590.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 19, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied.
<PAGE>   1




EXHIBIT 11        Statement re: computation of per share earnings


NET INCOME PER SHARE

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                      THREE MONTHS ENDED
                                                                ------------------------------
                                                                DECEMBER 28,      DECEMBER 29,
                                                                   1997               1996

<S>                                                              <C>               <C>       
Income from continuing operations                                $  154,000        $1,570,000

Loss from discontinued operations                                         -          (299,000)
                                                                 ----------        ----------

Net income                                                       $  154,000        $1,271,000
                                                                 ==========        ==========

Weighted average common shares
  outstanding - basic                                             7,090,000         6,612,000

Adjustments thereto(1)                                              673,000         1,320,000
                                                                 ----------        ----------

Weighted average common shares and equivalents - diluted          7,763,000         7,932,000
                                                                 ==========        ==========

BASIC EPS:
Income from continuing operations per share                      $     0.02        $     0.24
                                                                 ==========        ==========
Net income per share                                             $     0.02        $     0.19
                                                                 ==========        ==========

DILUTED EPS:
Income from continuing operations per share                      $     0.02        $     0.20
                                                                 ==========        ==========
Net income per share                                             $     0.02        $     0.16
                                                                 ==========        ==========
</TABLE>



     (1) Adjusts the weighted average number of shares outstanding for (i)
dilutive stock options and warrants using the treasury stock method, and (ii)
the conversion of preferred stock using the if-converted method.




                                       13
| 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 the Registrant. |
|                                      |                                                                                                                                                          |   |   |
|                                      |                                                                                                                                                          |   |   |
| /s/ Jeremy Hemann                         |                                                                                                                                                          |   |   |
| Name:  Jeremy Hemann            |                                                                                                                                                          |
| Title:  Chief Financial Officer |                                                                                                                                                          |
| Date:  November 12, 2010        |                                                                                                                                                          |

----
Tiffany COOPER, petitioner, v. GEORGIA.

No. 16-9228.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Georgia denied.
# Summary Report

# Product Detail

# Notes

# Products

# Chart

# Statistics

# Options
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Paul D.Melnuk, as Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of ThermadyneHoldings Corporation (the “Company”) certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, thatto my knowledge:

 

(1) theaccompanying Form 10-Q report for the period ending June 30, 2004 as filed withthe U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”) fully complies withthe requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934, as amended; and

 

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

 

 
| Dated:  August 9, 2004 |   |   |                          |   |
|-----------------------------|--------|--------|-------------------------------|--------|
|                        |   |   |                          |   |
|                        | By:    |   | /s/ Paul D.  Melnuk           |   |
|                        |   |   |                          |   |
|                        |   |   | Paul D.  Melnuk               |   |
|                        |   |   | Chief  Executive Officer      |   |
|                        |   |   | (Principal Executive Officer) |   |

 

----
CFTC TECHNOLOGY ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC) 

October 3, 2019 

AGENDA 

10:00am Opening Remarks 

10:20am Panel I: Virtual Currencies Subcommittee Presentations 

A review of the different natures and characteristics of stablecoins and the 

potential implications for regulation. 

Lead Participants:

 Gary DeWaal, Special Counsel, Chair, Financial Markets and Regulatory, 

Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP 

 Lee Schneider, General Counsel, block.one 

A presentation on the various cryptocurrency custodial relationships and 

custodial options. 

Lead Participants:

 Chris Brummer, Professor and Director, Institute of International 

Economic Law, Georgetown University Law Center 

 Thomas Chippas, Chief Executive Officer, ErisX 

11:45am Panel II: Distributed Ledger Technology and Market Infrastructure 

Subcommittee Presentation 

A presentation on data privacy, and the applications of distributed ledger 

technology in derivatives markets for custody and collateral management. 

Lead Participants:

 Brad Levy, CEO MarkitSERV, IHS Markit 

 Shawnna Hoffman, IBM Global Cognitive Legal Leader 

 Yesha Yadav, Professor of Law, Vanderbilt Law School 

12:30pm Lunch 
1:30pm Panel III: Automated and Modern Trading Markets Subcommittee Presentation

A presentation on best practices for managing risks associated with automated 

trading systems and related market implications, highlighting FIA’s best 

practices and risk controls currently employed on the ICE trading platform. 

Lead Participants:

 Alicia Crighton, Managing Director, Goldman Sachs 

 Mayur Kapani, Chief Technology Officer, ICE 

 Ed Prosser, Senior Vice President, The Scoular Company 

 Yesha Yadav, Professor of Law, Vanderbilt Law School 

2:30pm Panel IV: Cybersecurity Subcommittee Presentations

A presentation on the Financial Services Sector Cybersecurity Profile. 

Lead Participants:

 Tim McHenry, Vice President, Information Systems, NFA 

 Josh Magri, Senior Vice President and Counsel for Regulation & 

Developing Technology, Bank Policy Institute 

A presentation on the current approach to vendor risk management, the 

challenges of that approach, and possible alternatives to consider. 

Lead Participants:

 Jason Harrell, Executive Director and Head of Business and Government 

Cybersecurity Partnerships, DTCC 

3:20pm Closing Remarks
# C_2009180EN.01006301.xml

| 1.8.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 180/63 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 180/63

---

Action brought on 7 April 2009 — Roumimper v Europol

(Case F-41/09)

2009/C 180/115

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Jaques Pierre Roumimper (Zoetermeer, Netherlands) (represented by: P. de Casparis and D. Dane, lawyers.)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Police Office (Europol)

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision of 12 June 2008 informing the applicant that it was not possible to offer him a permanent post, and also the decision of 7 January 2009 rejecting the complaint brought against the former decision.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of 12 June 2008 whereby the defendant informed the applicant that it could not offer him permanent employment and also the decision made on his complaint on 7 January 2009 that the grounds of complaint brought by the applicant against the decision of 12 June 2008 were unfounded; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of 12 June 2008 whereby the defendant informed the applicant that it could not offer him permanent employment and also the decision made on his complaint on 7 January 2009 that the grounds of complaint brought by the applicant against the decision of 12 June 2008 were unfounded;

| — | Order Europol to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order Europol to pay the costs.

---
Gordon DRIVER, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-7684.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 19, 2018.

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

San Antonio, Texas

April 8, 2014

N o. 04

- 14

- 00028

- CV

Carmelita RILEY and Anthony Pena,

Appellant s

v.

Lizette TORRES , Paula Pueblitz, San Juanita Valdez and Puig Management and Rentals LLC.,

Appellee s

From the 341st Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012CVF001192

- D3

Honorable Rebecca Ramirez Palomo , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

On March 5, 2014, after sending appellants a show cause order, we dismissed this appeal

for failure to pay the applicable filing fee. On March 21, 2014, appellants filed a motion to

reinstate and attached an affidavit from appellants’ counsel , which affirmed that counsel had not

been aware of this Court’s show cause order and that the internet service with counsel’s firm had

been in terrupted. We GRANT appellants’ motion to reinstate, WITHDRAW our opinion and

judgment of March 5, 2014, and REINSTATE this appeal on the docket of this court.

We ORDER appellants, within ten (10) days of the date of this order, to pay the

applicable fili ng fee in this appeal

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 5 . If appellants fail to pay the applicable

filing fee within the time provided, this appeal will be dismissed. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3(c).

It is so ORD E RED on April 8, 2014

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO:

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
Exhibit 10.2

 

TRAVELCENTERS OF AMERICA LLC

 

Summary of Director Compensation

 

	
Annual Retainer for   Independent Directors:
    	
 
    	
$50,000
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Meeting Fees for Independent Directors:
    	
 
    	
$1,250 for each meeting attended. Up to two $1,250   fees are paid if a Board meeting and one or more Board committee meetings, or   two or more Board committee meetings, are held on the same date
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Share Grants for all Directors:
    	
 
    	
10,000 annually to be granted on the day of the   first board meeting following the Annual Meeting of Shareholders (or, for   Directors who are first elected or appointed at other times, on the day of   the first board meeting attended)
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Chair of the Audit Committee:
    	
 
    	
$20,000 per year
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Chair of the Nominating and Governance Committee:
    	
 
    	
$10,000 per year
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Chair of the Compensation Committee:
    	
 
    	
$10,000 per year
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Board Liaison to the Gaming Compliance Committee
    	
 
    	
$10,000 per year
    


 

The Company generally reimburses all Directors for travel expenses incurred in connection with their duties as Directors and for out of pocket costs incurred in connection with their attending certain continuing education programs.
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Ashley Borchardt, * From the 318th District Court

of Midland County,

 Trial Court No. FM68258.

Vs. No. 11-23-00155-CV * August 10, 2023

Brandon Borchardt, * Memorandum Opinion by Williams, J.

(Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Trotter, J., and Williams, J.)

This court has considered Ashely Borchardt’s motion to dismiss this appeal 

and concludes that the motion should be granted. Therefore, in accordance with 

this court’s opinion, the appeal is dismissed. The costs incurred by reason of this 

appeal are taxed against Ashley Borchardt.
Timothy REEVES, petitioner, v. Leo E. GREEN, Jr.

No. 17-7019.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 23, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
Overview of Focus Areas and Progress to Date

MRAC Subcommittee on Interest Rate Benchmark Reform

Background

Subcommittee 

Objective1

Uncleared Margin

• Legacy IBOR derivatives that are exempt from 

UMR requirements may lose legacy status if 

amended to include fallback provisions or 

transitioned to RFRs

− May dissuade market participants from 

executing conversions

• Several ways to effectuate a change from IBOR 

position to RFRs

− ARRC identified 9 possible conversion 

methods, but more may exist

− Due to complexity, it may be difficult for 

market participants to bifurcate conversions 

of existing risk from execution of new risk

• CFTC can consider broad relief to preserve a 

derivative’s legacy status if it is amended to 

include fallback provisions or converted via one of 

the ARRC-identified methods or other newly 

developed methods

• To further promote RFR liquidity, CFTC can 

permit all new uncleared RFR trades executed 

before Jan 1, 2022 to receive blanket relief from 

IM requirements

• CFTC could recommend that SIMM model 

enhancements that are necessary to include 

SOFR based swaps in SIMM should be 

approved centrally and firms should not be 

required to provide notice of or receive individual 

approvals with respect to those SIMM 

enhancements

Clearing Mandates

• Legacy IBOR derivatives that are exempt from 

clearing requirements may lose legacy status if 

amended to include fallback provisions

• Currently RFR derivatives are offered via 

clearinghouses and OTC, and clearing is not 

mandated by the CFTC

• CFTC can issue guidance communicating that the 

addition of fallback provisions in an IBORbased derivative contract will not impact 

“legacy” status as it relates to clearing mandate 

• To the extent liquidity in RFRs improves, the 

CFTC can consider a framework by which to 

identify when it is appropriate to mandate 

clearing of RFR transactions

Public Disclosure

• Disclosures for IBOR products regarding 

implications of benchmark reform exist in the 

market, but, while accurate and compliant with 

applicable regulations, may be too complex for 

average market participants to understand

• Given evolving nature of RFR transition globally, 

some existing disclosures have become 

outdated

• CFTC can endorse “plain-English” disclosure 

language for use in new IBOR derivatives 

drafted by the MRAC Subcommittee

• CFTC can also consider establishing a website 

for backup material on the RFR transition, which 

can be updated as needed

1. These subcommittee objectives are consistent with the requests outlined by the ARRC in its two letters to regulators on July 12, 2018 and May 13, 2019, respectively. The ARRC’s letters 

also highlight additional regulatory issues related to derivatives treatment which are outside the purview of this MRAC subcommittee
Maurice DANIELS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-7713.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 19, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
1054.

#### Barker *v.*The State.

Accusation of larceny, from city court of Tifton- — Judge Eve. February 3, 1908.

Powell, J.

The evidence was circumstantial only, and presented several reasonable theories other than that of the defendant’s guilt.

*Judgment reversed.*

*274Submitted March 31

Decided April *22,*1908.

*Smith & Foy,*for plaintiff in error.

*■ W. J. Wallace, solicitor,*contra.
Vanston Venner WILLIAMS, Mario Alin Bent Barker, Edince Garcia Cardoza, Hendrick Guillermo Linero Duffis, and Carlos Clemente Henry Taylor, petitioners, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-6666.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 19, 2018.

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