alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Order filed June 13, 2019

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 19

- 00046

- CV

____________ LAKESHA DIXSON , Appellant

V.

HOUSTON HOUSING AUTH ORITY, Appellee

On Appeal from the Co unty Civil C our t at Law No

. 1

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1120344



### O R D E R
Appellant’ s brief was due June 3, 2019

. No brief or motion for extension of
time has been filed.
Unless appellant files a brief with this court on or before June 28, 2019 , the court will dismiss the appeal for wa nt of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b).

PER CURIAM
Exhibit 21.1

KKR Financial Holdings LLC        List of Subsidiaries

Company

Jurisdiction of
Incorporation
or FormationKFN (Wayzata) LLC

DelawareKKR TRS Holdings, Ltd.

Cayman IslandsKKR Financial Holdings, Inc.

DelawareKKR Financial Holdings II, LLC

DelawareKKR Financial Holdings III, LLC

DelawareKKR Financial CLO Holdings, LLC

DelawareKKR Financial CLO 2005-1, Ltd.

Cayman IslandsKKR Financial CDO 2005-1, Ltd.

Cayman IslandsKKR Financial CLO 2005-2, Ltd.

Cayman IslandsKKR Financial CLO 2006-1, Ltd.

Cayman IslandsKKR Financial CLO 2007-1, Ltd.

Cayman IslandsKKR Financial CLO 2007-4, Ltd.

Cayman IslandsKKR Financial CLO 2007-A, Ltd.

Cayman IslandsKKR Financial CLO 2008-1, Ltd.

Cayman IslandsKKR Financial Holdings, Ltd.

Cayman IslandsKFN PEI V, LLC

DelawareKFN PEI VII, LLC

DelawareKFN PEI IX, LLC

DelawareKFN PEI XI, LLC

DelawareKKR Financial Capital Trust I

DelawareKKR Financial Capital Trust II

DelawareKKR Financial Capital Trust III

DelawareKKR Financial Capital Trust IV

DelawareKKR Financial Capital Trust V

DelawareKKR Financial Capital Trust VI

DelawareWayzata Funding LLC

Delaware


---



QuickLinks
#### William J. Best, Receiver, etc., Appellant, v. Sarah E. Palmer and others. Respondents.

Order vacating judgment for deficiency reversed, with costs and disbursements; order denying motion for receiver reversed and receiver appointed. Orders to be settled by Barnard. P. J. Opinion by

Barnard, P J.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 25 (Tuesday, February 7, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7263-7264]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-2994]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard
[CGD8-95-002]


Houston/Galveston Navigation Safety Advisory Committee Meeting

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Houston/Galveston Navigation Safety Advisory Committee 
(HOGANSAC) will meet to discuss various navigation safety matters 
affecting the Houston/Galveston area. The meeting will be open to the 
public.

DATES: The meeting will be held from 9 a.m. to approximately 1 p.m. on 
Thursday,March 23, 1995.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held in the conference room of the 
Houston Pilots Office, 8150 South Loop East, Houston, Texas.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LTJG D. E. Rowlett, Recording 
Secretary, Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District (oan), Room 1211, 
Hale Boogs Federal Building, 501 Magazine Street, New Orleans, LA 
70130-3396, telephone (504) 589-6235.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice of this meeting is given pursuant to 
the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 [[Page 7264]] U.S.C. App. 2 
Sec. 1 et seq. The meeting is open to the public. Members of the public 
may present written or oral statements at the meeting. The agenda for 
the meeting will focus solely on discussion of the Houston Ship Channel 
2000 (HSC 2000) report.

    Dated: January 27, 1995.
R.C. North,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Eight Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 95-2994 Filed 2-6-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-14-M
*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or

by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The Honorable Ronald B. Leighton, United States District Judge for the

Western District of Washington, sitting by designation.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DEBRA NOVAK-SCOTT,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

CITY OF PHOENIX,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 08-16253

D.C. No. CV-05-3147-PHX-JAT

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

 for the District of Arizona

James A. Teilborg, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted October 8, 2009

San Francisco, California

Before: RYMER and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges, and LEIGHTON,** 

District Judge.

Debra Novak-Scott, a City of Phoenix employee, appeals the district court’s

summary judgment dismissing her Title VII retaliation claim against the City of

FILED

NOV 12 2009

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

Phoenix. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. We

review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. Head v. Glacier, 413

F.3d 1053, 1058 (9th Cir. 2005).

The district court properly concluded that Ms. Novak-Scott failed to

establish a prima facie case of retaliation. She did not suffer the type of significant

harm that would dissuade a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge

of discrimination. Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53, 60

(2006). Accordingly, for the reasons stated by the district court, summary

judgment was properly granted for the City of Phoenix.

AFFIRMED.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18

OF THE UNITED STATES CODE,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Annual Report of Freedom Financial Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Robin W. Hunt, Chief Financial 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.



/s/Robin W. Hunt



Robin W. Hunt

Chief Financial Officer

Freedom Financial Holdins, Inc.



April 15, 2008
#### STATE v. DANIEL BRYANT.

(Filed 25 March, 1953.)

1. Criminal Law §§ 73d, 78c, 80b (5) —

The want of a case on appeal is not ground for dismissal, since the appeal itself constitutes an exception to the judgment and presents the case for review of alleged error appearing on the face of the record.

2. Criminal Law § 56—

To afford grounds for relief on a motion in arrest of judgment, it must be made to appear that the record is in some respect fatally defective and insufficient to support the judgment entered.

3. Same: Criminal Law § 77a: Searches and Seizures § 2—

A search warrant constitutes no part of the record, and therefore motion in arrest of judgment does not present the questions whether a search warrant issued by a magistrate was returnable before the judge of the municipal court or whether it is therefore void.

Appeal by defendant from *Frizzelle, J.,*November Term, 1952, of Cea VEN.

Criminal prosecution under a warrant charging that defendant did unlawfully have in his possession a quantity of nontax-paid liquor for the purpose of sale, heard in the Superior Court on appeal from the municipal court of the City of New Bern.

There was a verdict of guilty. The court pronounced judgment on the verdict and defendant appealed.

*Attorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attorney-General Love for the State.*

*Charles L. Ahernethy, Jr., for defendant appellant.*

*438Pee Cubiam.

Tbe Attorney-General moves to dismiss for tbat tbe defendant served no case on appeal and there is no “case agreed” or case on appeal settled by tbe judge appearing in tbe record. But an appeal will not be dismissed for failure of appellant to serve a case on appeal. Tbe appeal itself constitutes an exception to tbe judgment and presents tbe case for review of alleged error appearing on tbe face of tbe record. *Lawrence v. Lawrence,*226 N.C. 221, 37 S.E. 2d 496.

No error appears on tbe face of tbe record. To afford grounds for relief on a motion in arrest of judgment, it must be made to appear tbat tbe record is in some respect fatally defective and insufficient to support tbe judgment entered. *S. v. Cochran,*230 N.C. 523, 53 S.E. 2d 663; *S. v. Billiard,*223 N.C. 446, 27 S.E. 2d 85; *S. v. Gaston,*236 N.C. 499. Tbe record does disclose tbat a magistrate issued a search warrant returnable before tbe judge of tbe municipal court of tbe city of New Bern. We may concede, without deciding, tbat such warrant is unauthorized by statute and was void. Even so, there is nothing in tbe record tbat indicates any information discovered by authority of this warrant was offered in evidence against defendant. Furthermore, tbe search warrant constitutes no proper part of the record. *S. v. Gaston, supra.*

Tbe other questions tbe defendant seeks to present are not properly before us for consideration or decision.

Tbe judgment entered is

Affirmed.
#### FLODA P. LENTZ v. JOHN W. LENTZ.

(Filed 7 December, 1927.)

Judgments — Consent—Contracts—Courts—Contempt.

A judgment entered by tbe court upon tbe written consent of the parties, without express provision therein, only confers upon the courts the power to construe the contract as it is written, and excludes from it the power to adjudge a party thereto in contempt for the violation of its terms.

Appeal by plaintiff from *Townsend, Special Judge,*at Special June Term, 1927, of CabarRus.

Affirmed.

*Armfield, Sherrin & Ba)mhardt for plaintiff.*

*Hartsell & Hartsell, W. H. Woodson and Hayden Clement for defendant.*

Pee Cubiam.

This Court rendered the opinion that the original judgment in this action was a consent judgment. *Lentz v. Lentz,*193. N. C., p. 742.

The question presented: Is it error for the court below to hold that the defendant is not guilty of contempt in failing to pay the monthly installments due on a consent judgment? We think not.

*674In *Coburn V. Comrs.,*191 N. C., at p. 74, it is said: “This consent judgment left a discretionary power in the court to make such orders or decrees *for the protection of the rights of all parties.”*

There is no provision in the judgment in the present action that leaves the matter open, or any provision giving the court discretionary power as the *Coburn case, supra.*This Court can only construe the contract — consent judgment — as written.

The parties might have left the matter discretionary with the court, as in the *Coburn case, supra,*but this they did not do.

Affirmed.
#### F. O. CHRISTOPHER, Administrator of the Estate of EARL WHITE, Deceased, v. CHEROKEE COUNTY FAIR ASSOCIATION, a Corporation (WM. FAIN, President), and SOUTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY, a Corporation.

(Filed 27 September, 1939.)

Appeal by defendant, Southern States Power Company, from *Nettles, J.,*at January Term, 1939, of Cherokee.

No error.

*Smathers & Meekins for plaintiff, appellee.*

*J. N. Moody and C. E. Hyde for defendant, appellant.*

Per Curiam.

This is the appeal of Southern States Power Company from a judgment upon issues submitted and involves only the objection and exception to the refusal of the trial court to allow defendant’s motion for judgment as of nonsuit made at the conclusion of the plaintiff’s evidence and renewed at the conclusion of defendant’s evidence. The Court, being of the opinion that there was sufficient evidence to go to the jury upon the issue of negligence *(Smith v. Coach Co.,*214 N. C., 314; *Gunn v. Taxi Co.,*212 N. C., 540, 193 S. E., 28; *Hedgecock v. Ins. Co.,*212 N. C., 638, 194 S. E., 86), and that the evidence on the issue of contributory negligence was not of a character to justify the withdrawal cf the case from the jury as a matter of law *(Templeton v. Kelley,*215 N. C., 577; *Sebastian v. Motor Lines,*213 N. C., 770, 197 S. E., 539; *Manheim v. Taxi Corp.,*214 N. C., 689, 691; *Mulford v. Hotel Co.,*213 N. C., 603, 197 S. E., 169; *Cole v. Koonce,*214 N. C., 188), and the jury having answered both issues in favor of the plaintiff, finds no error in the trial. The judgment is affirmed.

No error.
#### Nicholas Murray, Respondent, v. Theodore L. Minzer, Appellant.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.

Opinion by

Boardman, J.
#### The Syracuse Water Company, Appellant, v. The City of Syracuse, Respondent. Same v. The City of Syracuse and The Central City Water-Works Company, Respondents.

Judgment in each case affirmed, with costs.

Opinion by

Follett, J.
#### SCOTT v. UNITED STATES.

No. 694, Misc.

Decided June 17, 1963.

Petitioner *pro se.*

*Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Miller, Beatrice Rosenberg*and *Julia P. Cooper*for the United States.

Per Curiam.

The motion for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis*and the petition for writ of certiorari are granted. In light of the suggestion of the Solicitor General the judgment is vacated and the case is remanded for reconsideration of the request for a transcript of record.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-1318

SARA E. PARKER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF RALEIGH,

NORTH CAROLINA,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior

District Judge. (CA-03-414-5-BR)

Submitted: June 10, 2004 Decided: June 16, 2004

Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sara E. Parker, Appellant Pro Se. Charles Theophilus Francis,

FRANCIS & AUSTIN, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Sara E. Parker appeals the district court’s order

dismissing her complaint alleging violations of the Fair Housing

Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq. (2000), for failure to state a claim

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). We have reviewed the record

and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the

reasons stated by the district court. See Parker v. Housing

Authority, No. CA-03-414-5-BR (E.D.N.C. Feb. 9, 2004). 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
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 236 (Friday, December 8, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 63046]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-29963]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION


Notice of Agreement(s) Filed

    The Federal Maritime Commission hereby gives notice of the filing 
of the following agreement(s) pursuant to section 5 of the Shipping Act 
of 1984.
    Interested parties may inspect and obtain a copy of each agreement 
at the Washington, D.C. Office of the Federal Maritime Commission, 800 
North Capitol Street, N.W., 9th Floor. Interested parties may submit 
comments on each agreement to the Secretary, Federal Maritime 
Commission, Washington, D.C. 20573, within 10 days after the date of 
the Federal Register in which this notice appears. The requirements for 
comments are found in section 572.603 of Title 46 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations. Interested persons should consult this section 
before communicating with the Commission regarding a pending agreement.
    Agreement No.: 203-011223-011.
    Title: Transpacific Stabilization Agreement.
    Parties: A.P. Moller-Maersk Line, American President Lines, Ltd., 
Evergreen Marine Corp. (Taiwan) Ltd., Hapag-Lloyd Aktiengesellschaft, 
Hanjin Shipping Co., Ltd., Hyundai Merchant Marine Co., Ltd., Kawasaki 
Kisen Kaisha, Ltd., Mitsui O.S.K. Lines, Ltd., Nedlloyd Lines B.V., 
Neptune Orient Lines, Ltd., Nippon Yusen Kaisha, Orient Overseas 
Container Line, Inc., Sea-Land Service, Inc., Yangming Marine Transport 
Corp.
    Synopsis: The proposed amendment clarifies Article 5--Agreement 
Authority to state that the members have the authority to discuss and 
agree upon charges and conditions, rates, and rate levels concerning 
cargo or service contracts. It also makes other nonsubstantive changes 
to the Agreement.

    Agreement No.: 202-011375-022.
    Title: Trans-Atlantic Conference Agreement.
    Parties: Atlantic Container Line AB, P&O Containers Limited, Sea-
Land Service, Inc., Hapag-Lloyd AG, Nedlloyd Lijnen BV, A.P. Moller-
Maersk Line, Cho Yang Shipping Co. Ltd., Mediterranean Shipping 
Company, S.A., DSR-Senator Lines, Polish Ocean Lines, Orient Overseas 
Container Line (UK) Ltd., Transportacion Maritima Mexicana, S.A., de 
C.V., Neptune Orient Lines Ltd., Nippon Yusen Kaisha, Tecomar S.A. de 
C.V., Hanjin Shipping Co., Ltd, Hyundai Merchant Marine Co., Ltd.
    Synopsis: The proposed amendment permits the parties to establish 
the terms of an arrangement to promote and facilitate the interchange 
of empty containers between them and to establish a computerized 
reporting system on container imbalances.

    Dated: December 5, 1995.

    By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.
Joseph C. Polking,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-29963 Filed 12-7-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-M
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                                CERTIFICATION OF
                           CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
                             CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                               OF NATCO GROUP INC.
             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 quarterly
period ended September 30, 2003 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the "Report"), I, Nathaniel A. Gregory, Chief Executive Officer of
NATCO Group Inc. (the "Company"), and, I, Richard W. FitzGerald, Senior Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, to my
knowledge, 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 the Report fairly presents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Company.

                                /s/ NATHANIEL A. GREGORY
                              ----------------------------------
                              Name: Nathaniel A. Gregory
                              Date: November 14, 2003

                                /s/ RICHARD W. FITZGERALD
                              ----------------------------------
                              Name: Richard W. FitzGerald
                              Date: November 14, 2003
Ameren Companies - Revised Schedule I



 Exhibit 10.1 
 Revised Schedule I to Second Amended and Restated 
 Ameren Corporation Change of Control Severance Plan

 

 
 SCHEDULE I 
 CHANGE OF CONTROL 
 SEVERANCE PLAN PARTICIPANTS 
  

			
	Benefit Level - 3
	Baxter, Warner L.	  	Moehn, Michael
	Cisel, Scott A.	  	Naslund, Charles D.
	Cole, Daniel F.	  	Nelson, Gregory L.
	Heflin, Adam C.	  	Rainwater, Gary L
	Lyons, Martin J.	  	Sullivan, Steven R.
	Mark, Richard J.	  	Voss, Thomas R.

  

			
	Benefit Level - 2
	Barnes, Lynn M.	  	Mosier, Don M.
	Birdsong, Jerre E.	  	Mueller, Michael G.
	Birk, Mark C.	  	Neff, Robert K.
	Borkowski, Maureen A.	  	Nelson, Craig D.
	Brawley, Mark	  	Ogden, Stan E.
	Bremer, Charles A.	  	Pate, Ron D.
	DeGraw, Kevin	  	Power, Joseph M.
	Diya, Fadi M.	  	Prebil, William J.
	Evans, Ronald K.	  	Schepers, David J.
	Fey, John R.	  	Schukar, Shawn E.
	Foss, Karen C.	  	Serri, Andrew M.
	Glaeser, Scott A.	  	Sobule, James A.
	Iselin, Christopher A.	  	Steinke, Bruce A.
	Kidwell, Stephen M.	  	Weisenborn, Dennis W.
	Lindgren, Mark C.	  	Zdellar, Ronald C.
	Menne, Michael L.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 242 (Monday, December 18, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 65066]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30656]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION

[Docket NO. AB-6 (Sub-No. 368X)]


Burlington Northern Railroad Company--Abandonment Exemption--in 
Clatsop County, OR

AGENCY: Interstate Commerce Commission.

ACTION: Notice of exemption.

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

SUMMARY: The Commission, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 10505, exempts from the 
prior approval requirements of 49 U.S.C. 10903-04 the abandonment by 
Burlington Northern Railroad Company of 5.04 miles of railroad in 
Clatsop County, OR, subject to standard labor protective conditions, an 
environmental condition, and a trail use condition.

DATES: Provided no formal expression of intent to file a financial 
assistance offer has been received, this exemption will be effective on 
January 17, 1996. Formal expressions of intent to file financial 
assistance offers\1\ under 49 CFR 1152.27(c)(2) and requests for a 
notice of interim trail use/rail banking must be filed by December 28, 
1995. Petitions to stay must be filed by January 2, 1996. Requests for 
a public use condition must be filed by January 8, 1996. Petitions to 
reopen must be filed by January 12, 1996.

    \1\See Exempt. of Rail Abandonment--Offers of Finan. Assist., 4 
I.C.C.2d 164 (1987).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ADDRESSES: Send pleadings referring to Docket No. AB-6 (Sub-No. 368X) 
to: (1) Office of the Secretary, Case Control Branch, Interstate 
Commerce Commission,\2\ 1201 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 
20423; and (2) Petitioner's representative: Sarah J. Whitley, 3800 
Continental Plaza, 777 Main Street, Fort Worth, TX 76102-5384.

    \2\Legislation to sunset the Commission on December 31, 1995, 
and transfer remaining functions is now under consideration in 
Congress. Until further notice, parties submitting pleadings should 
continue to use the current name and address.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph H. Dettmar, (202) 927-5660. 
[TDD for the hearing impaired: (202) 927-5721.]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Additional information is contained in the 
Commission's decision. To obtain a copy of the full decision, write to, 
call, or pick up in person from: DC NEWS & DATA, INC., Interstate 
Commerce Commission Building, 1201 Constitution Avenue, N.W., 
Washington, DC 20423. Telephone: (202) 289-4357. [Assistance for the 
hearing impaired is available through TDD services (202) 927-5721.]

    Decided: December 5, 1995.

    By the Commission, Chairman Morgan, Vice Chairman Owen, and 
Commissioner Simmons.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-30656 Filed 12-15-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7035-01-P