alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Presidential Documents

27629 

Federal Register 

Vol. 75, No. 94 

Monday, May 17, 2010 

Title 3— 

The President 

Notice of May 13, 2010 

Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to 

Burma 

On May 20, 1997, the President issued Executive Order 13047, certifying 

to the Congress under section 570(b) of the Foreign Operations, Export 

Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1997 (Public Law 104– 

208), that the Government of Burma had committed large-scale repression 

of the democratic opposition in Burma after September 30, 1996, thereby 

invoking the prohibition on new investment in Burma by United States 

persons contained in that section. The President also declared a national 

emergency to deal with the threat posed to the national security and foreign 

policy of the United States by the actions and policies of the Government 

of Burma, invoking the authority, inter alia, of the International Emergency 

Economic Powers Act, 50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq. 

Because the actions and policies of the Government of Burma continue 

to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and 

foreign policy of the United States, the national emergency declared on 

May 20, 1997, and the measures adopted on that date, on July 28, 2003, 

in Executive Order 13310, on October 18, 2007, in Executive Order 13448, 

and on April 30, 2008, in Executive Order 13464 to deal with that emergency, 

must continue in effect beyond May 20, 2010. Therefore, in accordance 

with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), 

I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency with respect to Burma. 

This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted to 

the Congress. 

THE WHITE HOUSE, 

May 13, 2010. [FR Doc. 2010–11945 

Filed 5–14–10; 11:15 am] 

Billing code 3195–W0–P 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUSOB#1.EPS</GPH>
- Home
      - Grants          - Project Grants
        - Technical Assistance Grants
        - Curriculum Adaptation & Training Grant
        - Strategic Initiatives Grants
        - Education Support Program
        - Funding Toolkit 
      - News
      - Grantee Spotlights
      - Priority Investment Areas          - Court Pandemic Response and Recovery Grant Program 
      - Grant Management
      - About SJI          - Board of Directors
        - Executive Director
        - Past Members
        - SJI Budget 

                  - Home
                  - Grants                      - Project Grants
                    - Technical Assistance Grants
                    - Curriculum Adaptation & Training Grant
                    - Strategic Initiatives Grants
                    - Education Support Program
                    - Funding Toolkit 
                  - News
                  - Grantee Spotlights
                  - Priority Investment Areas                      - Court Pandemic Response and Recovery Grant Program 
                  - Grant Management
                  - About SJI                      - Board of Directors
                    - Executive Director
                    - Past Members
                    - SJI Budget 

### Supporting the Nation's Judicial System & the Public it Serves

#### 					NEWS				

## Grant Applicant Education Webinar Series

The Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) will hold the following two webinars as part of the BJA Grant Applicant Education Series: Funding Opportunities for Your Community in 2022: An Overview of What’s Ahead: January 19, 2022, 1 p.m. ET. This webinar will help prospective applicants find BJA funding opportunities that address their needs. Second webinar: The Funding Process: First Steps to Applying, How to Prepare Now, and Other Considerations: January 26, 2022, 1 p.m. ET. This webinar will provide attendees with information about the registrations that are necessary prior to applying for funding, how to navigate Grants.gov and JustGrants, and resources that are available to applicants. Q&A sessions will be available at the end of each session.

#### LATEST NEWS & ANNOUNCEMENTS

                  -  Sixteen State Courts Participate in Groundbreaking Workshop for Racial Justice Education  Read More**   
                  -  New Resource: The Rural Justice Collaborative Digest for June 2024  Read More**   
                  -  SJI Board Awards FY 2024 Third Quarter Grants  Read More**   
                  -  SJI Executive Director, Jonathan Mattiello, Congressional Briefing Panelist on Capitol Hill  Read More**   

#### CONTACT US

          contact@sji.gov
                       Tel: 703.660.4979

#### HEADQUARTERS

                       State Justice Institute
                       12700 Fair Lakes Circle, Suite 340
                       Fairfax, VA 22033         

Website design by Segue Technologies, Inc.

            -  ** 
            -  **  **
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7718
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ERVIN JAHUE BLEVINS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CR-90-63, CA-95-710-R) Submitted: March 24, 1998 Decided: June 22, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ervin Jahue Blevins, Appellant Pro Se. Jennie M. Waering, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Blevins , Nos. CR-90-63; CA95-710-R (W.D. Va. Aug. 30, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
**Exhibit10.55**

 

2006 Short-termIncentive Plan Description

 

Under MirantCorporation’s short-term incentive plan, annual cash bonuses are awarded takinginto account an individual’s “target bonus percentage” (a percentage of suchparticipant’s base salary) and Mirant’s performance against establishedbusiness and financial goals. Each of Mirant’s named executive officers is aparticipant in the short-term incentive program. For 2006, the CompensationCommittee of the Board of Directors established certain criteria upon which thecorporate payout factor in the 2006 fiscal year will be based. Two-thirds ofthe corporate payout factor will be dependent on achievement of a range oftargeted Adjusted earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation andamortization (EBITDA). The level of Adjusted EBITDA necessary to earn 50%, 100%and 200% of the target percentage was set taking into consideration Mirant’sprojected Adjusted EBITDA under its 2006 operating plan. Bonus amounts betweenthe threshold and the target and between the target and maximum will be basedon interpolated performance levels between the specified levels. The remainderwill be dependent upon the achievement of other operational and strategicmetrics. The Compensation Committee will be responsible for assessing Mirant’sachievement of such operational and strategic metrics.

 

----
EXHIBIT 21

                     SUBSIDIARIES OF GEOSCIENCE CORPORATION

                                           STATE OR JURISDICTION
                                              OF INCORPORATION
                  NAME                          OR FORMATION
----------------------------------------   ----------------------
Syntron, Inc............................   Delaware
     Zhong Hai Syntron (TianJin)
       Geophysical Cable Company,
       Ltd..............................   China
     Syntron Europe Limited.............   Scotland
          Polyseis Limited..............   Scotland
          Syntron (UK) Limited..........   Scotland
     Syntron Asia Pte. Ltd..............   Singapore
     Innovative Transducers Inc.........   Delaware
GeoSensor Corporation...................   Delaware
GeoScience International Foreign Sales
  Corporation...........................   Barbados
Symtronix Corporation...................   Nevada
Symtronix Company.......................   Russia
**MPD** IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 2 2 - 0 363 STATE OF MONTANA ,

Plaintiff and Appellee , v. JOSEPH EDWARD KNOWLES ,

Defendant and Appellant .

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellee ’ s unopposed motion to file transcripts from State v . Knowles , DA

18 - 0105, in this matter , State v . Knowles , DA

22 - 0363, and good cause appearing therefor , IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Montana Supreme Court file in this matter , DA

22 - 0363, all transcripts filed in DA 18 - 0105.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

September 30 2024

09/30/2024

Case Number: DA 22-0363
<PAGE>
                                                                   Exhibit 23.03

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements No.
333-99777 and No. 333-99777-01 of Crescent Real Estate Equities Limited
Partnership of our report dated February 9, 2004, with respect to the Combined
Financial Statements of The Woodlands Development Company, L.P., The Woodlands
Commercial Properties, L.P., and The Woodlands Operating Company, L.P., included
in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003.


                                                           /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Houston, Texas
March 10, 2004
## NO. 12

- 16

- 00156

- CR

12

- 16

- 00157

- CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

SARAH CANNON,

APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE §

§

§ APPEAL S FROM THE 217TH

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

ANGELINA COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Appellant has filed a motion to dismiss th ese appeal s

. The motion is signed by Appellant

and her counsel. No decision has been delivered in th e appeal s

. Accordingly, Appellant’s

motion to dismiss is granted , and the appeal s are dismissed

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.2 (a).

Opinion delivered August 3, 2016.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

( DO NOT PUBLISH )

## COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APP EALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

AUGUST 3 , 2016

NO. 12

- 16

- 00156

- CR

SARAH CANNON,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

Appeal from the 217th District Court

of Angelina County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 2016

- 0144)

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the mo tion of the Appellant to dismiss

the appeal herein, and the same being considered, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and

DECREED by this Court that the motion to dismiss be granted and the appeal be dismissed, and

that the decision be certified to the court b elow for observance.

By per curiam opinion

. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.

## COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

AUGUST 3 , 2016

NO. 12

- 16

- 0015 7

- CR

SARAH CANNON,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

Appeal from the 217th District Court

of Angelina County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 2016

- 0048)

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the motion of the Appellant to dismiss

the appeal herein, and the same being considered, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJU DGED and

DECREED by this Court that the motion to dismiss be granted and the appeal be dismissed, and

that the decision be certified to the court below for observance.

By per curiam opinion

. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2004, of Commercial Federal Corporation as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2004 (the Report), I, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that, to my knowledge, the Report fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Commercial Federal
Corporation.



|                  |  |  |  |  |  |     |  |                                                     
|----------------- |  |  |  |  |  | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------
|Date: May 5, 2004 |  |  |  | 
|                  |  |  |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ William A. Fitzgerald                           
|                  |  |  |  |  |  |     |  | William A. Fitzgerald                               
|                  |  |  |  |  |  |     |  | Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer   
|                  |  |  |  | 
|                  |  |  |  |  |  |     |  | /s/ David S. Fisher                                 
|                  |  |  |  |  |  |     |  | David S. Fisher                                     
|                  |  |  |  |  |  |     |  | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer



A signed original of
this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to Commercial Federal Corporation and will be retained by Commercial Federal Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
[No. 23879.

*En Banc.*

June 3, 1933.]

#### Mildred Doreen Stam, *a Minor, by Her Guardian Ad Litem, Earl H. Stam, Appellant,*v. Al Johnson, *Defendant,*Lindeman Power, & Equipment Company, Respondent.1

*John E. Porter, Henry O. LevinsM,*and *Everett 0. Butts,*for appellant.

*Grady & Velikanje, Stanley P. Velikanje,*and *Fred Kemp,*for respondent.

1

Reported in 23 P. (2d) 1118.

On Rehearing.

Per Curiam.

Upon a rehearing *En Bane,*the court adheres to the Departmental opinion heretofore filed herein, and reported in 170 Wash. 534, 17 P. (2d) 4.
#### The Brooklyn Heights Railroad Company, Respondent, v. Brooklyn City Railroad Company, Appellant.

Motion to postpone granted, and case ordered placed at the head of the day calendar for October 8, 1911.

Present — Jenks, P. J., Hirsehberg, Burr, Thomas and Carr, JJ.
#### In re Liquidation of the CITIZENS BANK OF MOUNT OLIVE.

(Filed 20 March, 1935.)

Banlcs and Banking H a—

Judgment in this case dismissing an appeal from the levy of the statutory liability on bank stock for laches or because not taken in apt time for that nineteen or twenty months had elapsed since the assessment, is affirmed. N. 0. Code, 218 (c).

*66Appeal by C. W. Oliver from *Barnhill, J.,*at October Term, 1934, of WayNe.

Motion to dismiss appeal from levy of stock assessment.

*The facts*are *these:*

*1.*On 9 January, 1933, the Commissioner of Banks, under authority of O. S., 218 (c), levied a stock assessment against the stockholders of the Citizens Bank of Mount Olive, N. C., including, among others, an assessment of $800 against C. W. Oliver, who appeared upon the books of the bank as the owner of eight shares of its capital stock.

2. The assessment was docketed in the clerk’s office, "Wayne Superior Court, 11 January, 1933.

3. O. W. Oliver had actual knowledge of this assessment in February, 1933.

4. Notice of appeal was filed 31 August, 1934.

5. Motion to dismiss the appeal *for*laches, or because not taken in apt time, was heard and allowed solely upon the procedural ground, without considering the question sought to be raised by the appeal, from which ruling this appeal is prosecuted.

*Langston, Allen & Taylor for appellant.*

*Kenneth G. Royall and Robert A. Hovis for appellee.*

Stacy, O. J.

Section 13, chapter 113, Public Laws 1927, provides for summary assessment of liability of stockholders in insolvent banks, *Corp. Com. v. Murphey,*197 N. C., 42, 147 S. E., 667; and further: “Any stockholder may appeal to the Superior Court from the levy of assessment.” No time is designated in the statute for taking the appeal. Hence, we must proceed by analogy to1 the practice in other like cases so as to effectuate the purpose and intent of the law. *S. v. Carroll,*194 N. C., 37, 138 S. E., 339.

Whether it was the intention of the General Assembly that the rules governing appeals from justices’ courts should apply to appeals from such assessments need not be decided on the present record. *Higdon v. Light Co.,*207 N. C., 39, 175 S. E., 710. “Where an appeal is expressly or impliedly given, the courts may look to other general statutes regulating appeals in analogous cases and give them such application as the particular case and the language.of the statute may warrant, keeping in view always the intention of the *Legislature*”—Walker, *J.,*in *Cook v. Vickers,*141 N. C., 101, 53 S. E., 740.

That the appeal should be taken “within a reasonable time” is all the appellant could claim. *Blair v. Coakley,*136 N. C., 405, 48 S. E., 804. We agree with the trial court that a delay of nineteen or twenty months is too long.

Affirmed.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

BAKER 

&

HOSTETLER LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

LOS 

ANGELES

-8- 

Exhibit B

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2295-2 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 10:14:52 Page 1

of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

BAKER 

&

HOSTETLER LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

LOS 

ANGELES

-9- 

COMPENSATION BY WORK TASK CODE FOR

SERVICES RENDERED BY BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP

FOR THE PERIOD APRIL 1, 2019 THROUGH APRIL 30, 2019 

TASK 

CODE DESCRIPTION HOURS AMOUNT

002 Asset Sales/363 Sales 2.80 $3,141.50

003 Automatic Stay 8.10 $8,316.00

004 Bankruptcy Litigation 205.00 $177,730.50

005 Bar Date Motion/Claims Reconciliation/Claim 

Reconciliation Issue 216.60 $179,948.50 

006 Case Administration (docket updates, WIP and calendar) 84.50 $30,696.50

007 CCA and other Aggregator Issues 5.90 $4,156.00

008 Chapter 11 Plan/Plan Confirmation 83.60 $53,145.50

009 Committee Meetings and Preparation 247.10 $216,528.00

010 Corporate and Board Issues 107.60 $86,432.50

012 DIP Financing/Cash Mgmt./Hedging Transactions 0.70 $651.00

014 Employee Issues 140.50 $120,324.00 

015 Equity Committee 2.30 $1,429.00

017 Executory Contracts/Lease Issues 22.00 $19,305.00

018

General Case Strategy (includes communications with 

Committee) 86.00 $62,564.00 

019 Hearings and Court Matters 48.40 $41,414.50

020 Legislative Issues/Inverse Reform 211.10 $186,017.50

021 Non-Bankruptcy Litigation 8.50 $7,012.50

022 Non-Working Travel 121.90 $49,657.25†

023 FERC Adversary Proceeding 7.30 $5,475.00

024 District Court Litigation 16.60 $14,258.00

025 Regulatory Issues including CPUC and FERC 269.90 $224,090.50

026 Retention Applications 108.40 $87,370.50

027 Fee Application: Baker 27.20 $20,399.50 

028 Fee Application: Other Professionals 4.70 $3,315.00

029 Schedules/Statement of Financial Affairs 11.80 $9,500.00

031

U.S. Trustee issues/meetings/communications/monthly 

operating 10.60 $10,095.50 

032 Unsecured Creditor Issues/Communications/Meetings 23.90 $22,661.00

033 Utility Issues/Adequate Assurance/Insurance 7.50 $4,985.00

035 Real Estate and Real Property Issues 25.30 $23,422.00

036 Avoidance Action Analysis/Lien Avoidance Analysis 9.90 $6,255.00

037 Investigations 3.70 $2,870.00

† Travel time was charged at 50% of normal hourly rates during the Fee period.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2295-2 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 10:14:52 Page 2

of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

BAKER 

&

HOSTETLER LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

LOS 

ANGELES

-10- 

TASK 

CODE DESCRIPTION HOURS AMOUNT

038 Financial Advisors 90.50 $83,870.00

039 Other Contested Matters 59.90 $48,834.00

040 Operations 51.30 $41,321.50

042 Subrogation 99.50 $68,321.50

TOTAL 2,430.60 $1,925,513.75 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2295-2 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 10:14:52 Page 3

of 3
- Home
      - Grants          - Project Grants
        - Technical Assistance Grants
        - Curriculum Adaptation & Training Grant
        - Strategic Initiatives Grants
        - Education Support Program
        - Funding Toolkit 
      - News
      - Grantee Spotlights
      - Priority Investment Areas          - Court Pandemic Response and Recovery Grant Program 
      - Grant Management
      - About SJI          - Board of Directors
        - Executive Director
        - Past Members
        - SJI Budget 

                  - Home
                  - Grants                      - Project Grants
                    - Technical Assistance Grants
                    - Curriculum Adaptation & Training Grant
                    - Strategic Initiatives Grants
                    - Education Support Program
                    - Funding Toolkit 
                  - News
                  - Grantee Spotlights
                  - Priority Investment Areas                      - Court Pandemic Response and Recovery Grant Program 
                  - Grant Management
                  - About SJI                      - Board of Directors
                    - Executive Director
                    - Past Members
                    - SJI Budget 

### Supporting the Nation's Judicial System & the Public it Serves

#### 					ANNOUNCEMENT				

## Low-Cost Ways to Increase Court Appearances

Thursday, September 29th.  4:00-5:00 PM ET.

During this webinar, hear experts discuss why appearance rates matter, low-cost interventions courts can implement to improve appearance rates, and what broad-scale reform to improve court appearance rates can look like. NCSC will also convene interested judges, court administrators, and practitioners from around the country to share their experiences and brainstorm new ways to help court users overcome barriers to accessing court.

## **Moderator:**

                  - Shelly Cern |  Principal Court Management Consultant, National Center for State Courts

## **Panelists:**

                  - Alissa Fishbane |  Managing Director, ideas42
                  - Pamerson Ifill |   Deputy Commissioner of Pretrial, State of Massachusetts
                  - Martha Wright |  Judicial Council of California
                  - Judge Milas “Butch” Hale |  District Court of Arkansas, Sherwood 

Register here

#### LATEST NEWS & ANNOUNCEMENTS

                  -  Sixteen State Courts Participate in Groundbreaking Workshop for Racial Justice Education  Read More**   
                  -  New Resource: The Rural Justice Collaborative Digest for June 2024  Read More**   
                  -  SJI Board Awards FY 2024 Third Quarter Grants  Read More**   
                  -  SJI Executive Director, Jonathan Mattiello, Congressional Briefing Panelist on Capitol Hill  Read More**   

#### CONTACT US

          contact@sji.gov
                       Tel: 703.660.4979

#### HEADQUARTERS

                       State Justice Institute
                       12700 Fair Lakes Circle, Suite 340
                       Fairfax, VA 22033         

Website design by Segue Technologies, Inc.

            -  ** 
            -  **  **
#### Florence M. Myers, Respondent, v. James A. Gray and Others, Appellants.

Motion denied, with ten dollars costs.

Present Jenks, P. J., Hifseliberg, Burr, Thomas and Carr, JJ.