alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Continuing Abatement Order filed April 19, 2016

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 15

- 00684

- CR

____________ QUINTON COX , Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 434th Judicial District Court

Fort Bend County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 13

- DCR

- 064794



### CONTINUING ABATEMENT ORDER

On February 5, 2016 , this c ourt directed the trial court to conduct a hearing in
this case to determine whether appellant is indigent and entitled to appointed counsel
and a free record on appeal . Our order required the trial judge to see that a record of the hearing is made, make findings of fact and conclusions of law, and order the trial clerk to forward a record of the hearing and a supplemental clerk ’ s record containing the findings and conclusions. The transcribed record of the hearing and the courtsfindings and conclusions were to be filed with the clerk of this c ourt on or before

March 7, 2016 . To date, the court has not received the record or findings.
The appeal i s abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from this c ourt ’ s active docket. The appeal will be reinstated on this c ourt ’ s active docket when the
trial court ’ s findings and recommendations are filed in this c ourt. The c ourt will also consider an approp riate motion to reinstate the appeal filed by either party. It is the responsibility of any party seeking reinstatement to request a hearing date from the trial court and to schedule a hearing in compliance with this c ourt ’ s order. If the parties do not re quest a hearing, the court coordinator of the trial court shall set a hearing date and notify the parties of such date.

It is so ORDERED.

PER CURIAM
92 Office of Economic Adjustment — Defense Spending by State, FY 2018

 Data sources: DoD’s Defense Manpower Data Center; DoD’s Procurement and Acquisition Policy; DoD’s Military Installations, Ranges and Training Areas; USASpending.gov; U.S. Bureau of Economic 

Analysis; U.S. Census Bureau; and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

, DEFENSE CONTRACTS

DEFENSE PERSONNEL

By Type

By Service

Top Defense Contractors (M = millions) 

Vigor Industrial $158.5 M

EPIC Aviation $95.8 M

FLIR Systems $80.7 M

Qorvo Inc. $47.7 M

Pacific Star Communications Inc. $31.3 M

Galois $24.0 M

Columbia Helicopters Inc. $22.8 M

Oregon Freeze Dry Inc. $16.3 M

Meggitt $14.4 M

Lacrosse Footwear Inc. $12.7 M

Contract Awards Performed (by fiscal year, billions)

OREGON

#40 #50 0.3% $401 #39 #40 #42

$1.7 B SPENT 

IN STATE

0.7% OF STATE GDP OF TOTAL U.S. 

DEFENSE SPENDING

PER RESIDENT $1.2 B CONTRACT 

SPENDING

12,979 NUMBER 

OF PERSONNEL

$0.5 B PERSONNEL 

SPENDING

Allocations, By Type

Allocations, By Service

$482.5 MILLION

TOTAL PAYROLL

12,979

TOTAL PERSONNEL

Top Defense Personnel Locations

County Active 

Duty

Civilian National 

Guard

Reserve Total

Multnomah 236 1,544 2,052 698 4,530

Marion 16 301 1,381 ND

Klamath 116 325 992 ND

Clackamas 32 194 593 386 1,205

Lane 58 144 365 344 911

Umatilla ND 172 340 ND

Clatsop ND 57 286 ND

Jackson ND 41 288 ND

Washington ND 12 254 ND

Linn ND 37 202 ND

Construction: 1%

Research and 

Development: 5%

Service: 14%

Supplies and Equipment: 80%

Active Duty: 4%

Civilian: 24%

National Guard: 61%

Reserve: 11%

12%

56%

6%

25%

Army

Navy/Marines

Air Force

Other Defense

Army

Navy/Marines

Air Force

Other Defense

66%

8%

25%

0%

$0.7

$0.9

$0.5 $0.5

$1.2

$0.6 $0.7

$1.2

FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND
Office of Economic Adjustment — Defense Spending by State, FY 2018 93

AF Active AF Guard AF Reserve Army Active Army Guard Army Reserve MC Active Navy Active WHS

(M=millions)

FISCAL YEAR 2018

TOP DEFENSE PERSONNEL SPENDING LOCATIONS (M=millions)

Washington

Multnomah

Hood River

Clackamas Yamhill

Marion

Linn

Lane Deschutes

Jackson

FISCAL YEAR 2018 OREGON

TOP DEFENSE CONTRACT SPENDING LOCATIONS (M = million) (M=millions) (M=millions)

FISCAL YEAR 2018

Washington

Multnomah

Clackamas

Marion

Linn

Jackson

Yamhill

Lane

Hood River

Deschutes

(M = millions)

$544.9 M

$199.4 M

$185.7 M

$126.5 M

$19.0 M

$18.6 M

$18.2 M

$17.0 M

$14.9 M

$14.5 M

Multnomah

Marion

Klamath

Clackamas

Lane

Umatilla

Wasco

Sherman

Clatsop

Jackson

$211.3 M

$63.0 M

$55.4 M

$32.5 M

$26.8 M

$19.3 M

$12.9 M

$11.3 M

$8.3 M

$7.0 M

Clatsop

Umatilla

Sherman

Wasco

Clackamas

Lane

Jackson Klamath

Multnomah

Marion
Exhibit 23


                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


         As   independent   public   accountants,   we  hereby  consent  to  the
incorporation  by  reference  in  the   registration   statements  of  ACNielsen
Corporation  on  Form  S-8  (File  Nos.  333-14085,   333-14753,  333-58885  and
333-31152) of our report dated  February 17, 2000  incorporated  by reference in
ACNielsen  Corporation's  Form 10-K for the year ended  December 31, 1999 and to
all references to our Firm included in this Form 10-K.






                                                        /s/ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

Stamford, Connecticut
March 23, 2000
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Transportation

###### Federal Aviation Administration

# AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

Notice is being given that the FAA is considering a request from the Virgin Islands Port Authority to release and exchange 0.822 acres of airport property with the University of the Virgin Islands. The current Port Authority parcel is isolated from the rest of airport property and currently houses a shopping center. The property will be exchanged for a parcel adjacent to the general aviation area and allow aeronautical development.

# DATES:

Comments must be received on or before August 12, 2022.

# ADDRESSES:

Comments on this notice may be mailed or delivered in triplicate to the FAA to the following address: Atlanta Airports District Office Attn: Joseph Robinson, Airport Planner, 1701 Columiba Ave., Suite 220, College Park, GA 30337.

In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be mailed or delivered to the Virgin Islands Port Authority, Attn: Ms. Catherine Hendry, 8074 Lindbergh Bay, St. Thomas, VI 00802.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Joseph Robinson, Airport Planner,                               ( print page 41852)                            Atlanta Airports District Office, 1701 Columbia Ave., Suite 220, College Park, Georgia 30337-2747, (404)305-6749. The application may be reviewed in person at this same location.                    

Issued in Atlanta, Georgia on July 7, 2022.

Joseph Parks Preston,

Assistant Manager, Atlanta Airports District Office, Southern Region.

[FR Doc. 2022-14891 Filed 7-12-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential.



# United States Court of Appeals

**for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

MIKE’ S TRAIN HOUSE, INC.,

Plaintiff

- Appellant

,

v.

BROADWAY LIMITED IMPORTS, LLC AND

ROBERT GRUBBA,

Defendants

- Appellees.

______________________

2012

- 1311

______________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

District of Maryland in No. 09

- CV

- 2657, Judge James K.

Bredar.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

B RIAN E. F ERGUSON , Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, of

Washington, DC, argued for plaintiff

- appellant.

J. W ILEY H ORTON , Pennington, Moore, Wilkinson, Bell

& Dunbar, P.A., of Tallahassee, Florida, argued for d efendants

- appellees. Of counsel was A DRIENNE C. L OVE

.

______________________T HIS C AUSE having been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (D YK

, M AYER , and O’M ALLEY

, Circuit

Judges ).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

April 8, 2013 /s/ Jan Horbaly

Date Jan Horbaly

Clerk
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5407 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain wooden wall plates. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 13, 2008 

Mr. ACKERMAN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain wooden wall 

plates. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN WOODEN WALL PLATES. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Residential grade toggle and 

duplex wallplates of wood 

(provided for in subheading 

4421.90.97) ........................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2011 ’’. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
2 

•HR 5407 IH

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
### F I LE D

. U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E LEVE NTH CI RCUI T D E C E M B E R 19, 2006 T HOM AS K. KAHN C L E RK

Honora ble Pasco B owman, II , United States Circuit Judg e for the Eighth Circuit, sitting * by designation. [ DO NO T P UB L I S H]

I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 15242

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 2 - 0 0 9 1 0 - C V- OR L - 2 8 - J GG G A R Y L E E W H E E L E R , P e titio n e r - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s J A M E S M C D O N O U G H , C H A R L I E C R I S T , R e s p o n d e n ts - A p p e lle e s .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( D e c e m b e r 19, 2006) B efo re T JO F L A T , H U L L an dB O W M A N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. * P E R C U R I A M: A ft eroral ar gu m entand a tho roug h revi ew of the re cord, w e c on cl ud e that2

the di stri ctcourtj ud ge erre d b y f ai l i ng t o rec use hi m se l f f rom A pp el l antG ary L ee W he e l e r ’ s 28 U . S . C . § 2254 pr oc e e di ngs , w he r e the j udge a l s o w a s the c hi e f j udge of the s t a t e appe l l a t e c ourttha ta f f i rm e d, on di r e c tappe a l , the s t a t e c onvi c t i ons now be i ng c ha l l e nge d byW he e l e ri n hi s § 2254 pe t i t i on. I n doi ng s o, w e j oi n the other c i rc ui t s w hi ch have hel d that28 U . S . C . § 4 55 (a ) r equi re s adi stri ctcourt j udge t o r e c us e hi m s e l f unde rs i m i l a rc i r c um s t a nc e s . S e e C l e m m ons v. W ol f e , 377 F . 3d 322 ( 3d C i r . 2004) ; R us s e l l v. L a ne , 890 F . 2d 947 ( 7th C i r . 1989) ; R i c e v. M c K e n z ie , 5 8 1 F .2 d1 1 1 4 ( 4 th C ir . 1 9 7 8 ) . A c c or di ngl y , w e r e ve r s e the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s A ugus t24, 2005 or de rde ny i ng W he e l e r ’ s m ot i on t o va c a t e , f i l e d pur s ua ntt o F e d. R . C i v. P . 60( b) ( 6) ; va c a t e the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s N ove m be r14, 2002 or de rdi s m i s s i ng W he e l e r ’ s § 2254 pe t i t i on; or de rtha tW he e l e r ’ s § 2254 pe t i t i on be r e i ns t a t e d nunc pr o tunc a s of the da t e of i t s or i gi na l f

i l i ng; a nd di r e c ttha tW he e l e r ’ s § 2254 pe t i t i on be a s s i gne d t o a d iffe re n t d istrict co u rt ju d g e w h o h as n o t p ar ti cip ated in th e r ev iew o f W h ee ler’s co n v i ct i o n s ati ssu e w h i l e serv i n g i n th e st at e co u rt s. RE V E RS E D, V AC AT E D, AN D R E MAND E D T O R E I NS T AT E P E T I T I ON .
STATE v. FULLER.

No. COA04-1022.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed April 4, 2006.

Certification Date April 24, 2006.

Appeal from Robeson (99CRS6455, 99CRS6456, 99CRS16563).

Case without published opinion. No error.
Exhibit 10(g)  


Summary of Viacom Inc. Compensation for Outside Directors

(As of July 20, 2005)  


Cash
Compensation 



	•
	An
annual retainer of $60,000, payable in equal installments quarterly in advance, plus a per meeting attendance fee of $2,000;



	•
	The
Chairs of the Audit, Compensation, Strategic Planning and Ad Hoc Committees each receive an annual retainer of $20,000, payable in equal installments quarterly in
advance, and the members of those committees receive a per meeting attendance fee of $2,000;



	•
	The
Chair of the Nominating and Governance Committee receives an annual retainer of $15,000, payable in equal installments quarterly in advance, and the members of that
committee receive a per meeting attendance fee of $1,500;



	•
	The
Lead Independent Director receives an annual fee of $50,000, payable in equal installments quarterly in advance from the date of his or her appointment; and



	•
	The
members of the Special Separation Committee will receive a one-time fee of $30,000 upon consummation of the transaction to create two separate publicly
traded companies. 



Outside
directors may elect to defer their cash compensation under the Viacom Inc. Deferred Compensation Plan for Non-Employee Directors, or any successor plan. 




Equity
Compensation 



 Stock Options:  


	•
	an
initial grant of 10,000 stock options to purchase shares of Class B common stock on the date the director first joins the Board or becomes an outside director,
which options vest one year from the date of grant; and



	•
	an
annual grant of 4,000 stock options to purchase shares of Class B common stock on January 31 of each year, which options vest in equal installments over a
period of three years. 




The
exercise price of the stock options is the closing price of Viacom's Class B common stock on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) on the date of grant. 



 Restricted Share Units (RSUs):  


	•
	an
initial grant of RSUs on May 26, 2005 (the date stockholder approval of the Viacom Inc. 2005 RSU Plan for Outside Directors was first received) equal to
$55,000 in value based on the closing price of the Class B common stock on the NYSE on such date, which RSUs vest one year from the date of grant; and 








 



	•
	an
annual grant of RSUs on January 31st of each year equal to $55,000 in value based on the closing price of the Class B common stock on the NYSE on the date
of grant, which RSUs vest one year from the date of grant. 




RSUs
are payable to outside directors in shares of Class B common stock upon vesting unless the outside director elects to defer settlement of the RSUs to a future date. Outside directors are
entitled to receive dividend equivalents on the RSUs in the event the Company pays a regular cash dividend on its Class B common stock. Dividend equivalents will accrue on the RSUs (including
deferred RSUs) in accordance with the plan until the RSUs are settled, at which time the dividend equivalents are payable in shares of Class B common stock, with fractional shares paid in cash. 



2
Amendment to Stock option Agreement



 Exhibit 10.5 
  
 THE PMI GROUP, INC. 
  
 AMENDMENT TO 
  
 STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT 
  
 This Amendment (“Amendment”) to the Stock Option Agreement (“Agreement”) dated
                             between The PMI Group, Inc. (the “Company”) and you [employee
name                             ] (“Employee”) is effective as of May 19, 2005. 

 
 1. The following provisions of your Agreement are hereby amended to read in their entirety
as follows: 
  
 Maximum Number of Shares Purchasable with this
Option:                              
  
 Scheduled Vesting Dates: 100% of Shares are vested as of the date of this
Amendment. 
  
 2. Except as set forth in this Amendment, all terms and
conditions of the Agreement remain in full force and effect. 
  
 IMPORTANT: 
  
 IT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY
TO EXERCISE 
 THIS OPTION BEFORE IT EXPIRES. 
  
 Your signature below indicates your agreement and understanding that your option is subject to all of the terms and conditions contained in
the Amendment, the Agreement, Appendix A and the Plan. For example, important additional information on termination of this option is contained in Paragraphs 4 through 6 of Appendix A. PLEASE BE SURE TO READ ALL OF APPENDIX A, WHICH CONTAINS THE
SPECIFIC TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THIS OPTION. 
  

					
	THE PMI GROUP, INC.	 	 	 	EMPLOYEE
			
	  	 	 	 	  
	 Charles F. Broom
	 	 	 	 [Name]

	 Senior Vice President
EXHIBIT 32.4
 
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 906 OF THE
 SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 I, David L. Sokol, Chief Executive Officer of MidAmerican Funding, LLC (the Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:
 
 (1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2004 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
 
 (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
 
 
 Dated: May 4, 2004
 
 
 /s/ David L. Sokol
 David L. Sokol
 Chief Executive Officer
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED NOVEMBER 4, 2021

NO. 03

- 21

- 00522

- CR

Martin Dale Walker , Appellant

v.

The State of Texas , Appellee

APPEAL FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 6 OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE BY RNE, JUSTICES TRIANA AND KELLY

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE KELLY

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction entered by the tr i a l court. Having reviewed

the re cord, it appears that the Court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal . Therefore, the Court

dismisses the appeal for want of jurisdiction

. Because appellant is indigent and u nable to pay

costs, no adjudica t i on of costs is made.
# L_2016170EN.01000301.xml

| 29.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 170/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 170/3

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2016/1043

of 15 June 2016

entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Café de Valdesia (PDO))

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, the Dominican Republic's application to register the name ‘Café de Valdesia’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, the Dominican Republic's application to register the name ‘Café de Valdesia’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

| (2) | As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Café de Valdesia’ should therefore be entered in the register, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Café de Valdesia’ should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The name ‘Café de Valdesia’ (PDO) is hereby entered in the register.

The name specified in the first paragraph denotes a product in Class 1.8. Other products listed in Annex I to the Treaty (spices etc.), in accordance with Annex XI to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 (3).

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 15 June 2016.

For the Commission,

On behalf of the President,

Phil HOGAN

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ C 91, 8.3.2016, p. 15.

2

(3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 of 13 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 179, 19.6.2014, p. 36).

3

---
INTERNATIONAL FURNITURE PRODUCTS SHIPPERS ASS'N, INC. v. MASTEN FURNITURE CO.

No. COA05-976.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed May 2, 2006.

Certification Date May 22, 2006.

Appeal from Guilford (04CVD111446).

Case without published opinion. Affirmed.
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. Section 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Global Green Solutions Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended August 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, J. Douglas Frater, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                                
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   
|(2) | The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|   

Dated this 22ndday of October, 2007.

J. DOUGLAS FRATERJ. Douglas Frater, President and Chief Executive Officer





















---