alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07 - 13 - 00099 - CR CLYDE GARNETT LAND, III, APPELLANT

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE On Appeal from the 242nd District Court

Hale County, Texas Trial Court No. B17581 - 0803, Honorable Edw ard Lee Self, Presiding 

### December 5 , 2013 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ. Clyde Garnett Land, III, appellant, was charged with theft, a state jail f elony and, after pleading guilty, was sentenced to twelve months in a state jail facility. His sentence was suspended, and appellant was placed on community supervision for four years. Subsequently, the State filed a motion to revoke appellant’s communit y supervision which motion was dismissed when appellant became current on his fees. The State, later, sought to have appellant’s probation revoked on other grounds. The court granted the motion and sentenced appellant to twelve months in a state jail fac ility.2

Appellant’s counsel has filed a motion to withdraw, together with an Anders 1 brief, wherein he certifies that, after diligently searching the record, the appeal is without merit. Along with his brief, he has filed a copy of a letter sent to appella nt informing him of counsel’s belief that there was no reversible error and of appellant’s right to appeal pro se . By letter, this court also notified appellant of his right to file his own brief or response by November 15, 2013, if he wished to do so. A ppellant filed a response wherein he generally stated he has grounds to pursue the appeal, however, he mentioned none. In compliance with the principles enunciated in Anders , appellate counsel discussed potential areas for appeal which included the suffi ciency of the evidence to revoke probation, and the propriety of the sentence assessed. However, he then explained why the issues lacked merit. In addition, we conducted our own review of the record to assess the accuracy of counsel’s conclusions and to uncover arguable error pursuant to In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) and Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 508 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). After doing so, we concurred with counsel’s conclusions. Accordingly, the motion to withdraw is grant ed and the judgment is affirmed. 2 Brian Quinn Chief Justice Do not publish.

1 See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 - 45, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). 2 Appellant has the right to file a petition for discretionary review with the Court of Criminal Appeals.
Description of 2009 - 2010 Non-Employee Director Compensation



 Exhibit 10.2 
 The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc. 
 2009-2010 Compensation of Non-Employee Directors 

— For the annual service period beginning on May 12, 2009, the date of the 2009 Annual Meeting of Shareholders— 
  

			
	 Standard Fees
	  	 Description

	Annual Director Retainer	  	
	 - Stock Component
	  	 - $60,000 valuation
 - Granted on May 12, 2009.
Issued pursuant to Company’s 2006 Long-Term Incentive Plan (the “2006 Plan”)

	 - Cash Component
	  	 - $30,000 
 - Payable on or after May 12, 2009


		
	Board Meeting Fee	  	 - $2,200 per meeting attended in person
 -
$1,100 per meeting attended telephonically

		
	Committee Meeting Fee	  	 - $1,500 per Committee meeting attended in person
 - $750 per Committee meeting attended telephonically
 - Meetings of the independent directors designated as meetings of the Committee of
Independent Directors (the “CID”) are to be compensated as a meeting of the Board, provided, however, meetings of the CID that are held in conjunction with Board meetings are not to be separately compensated.

		
	Committee Chairperson Annual Retainer	  	 - $7,500 for the chairperson of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee, payable on or after May 12, 2009
 - $10,000 for the chairperson of the Compensation Committee, payable on or after May 12, 2009
 - $15,000 for the chairperson of the Audit Committee, payable on or after May 12, 2009

		
	Chairman of the Board Retainer	  	 - $75,000 
 - Payable on or after May 12, 2009











			
	 Other
	  	 
	Deferred Compensation Plan	  	- Directors may defer receipt of their cash and stock compensation. Deferred cash amounts are accrued in a memorandum account that is credited with interest derived from the so-called General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) Rate (4.00% in 2009). At the election of each director, cash deferrals of meeting fees and retainers may be converted to Common Stock of the Company with such stock issued pursuant to the 2006
Plan
		
	Conversion Program	  	- At the election of each director, cash meeting fees and retainers may be converted into Common Stock of the Company with such stock issued pursuant to the 2006 Plan
		
	Reimbursable Expenses 	  	- Travel and related expenses incurred in connection with service on the Board of Directors and its Committees
		
	Matching Charitable Contributions	  	- Company will provide matching contributions to qualified charitable organizations up to $5,000 per director per year
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JOSEPH EDWARD WILLIAMS,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 441 MAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 23rd day of January, 2024, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
EXHIBIT 32.1



Certification of Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to

to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer of SAVVIS Communications
Corporation (the Company), hereby certifies that, to his knowledge on the date hereof:



|(a) |  | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2003, filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934: and
|--- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(b) |  | information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|--- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|Date: August 12, 2003 |  |  |  | By: /s/ Robert A. McCormick         
|--------------------- |  |  |  | ------------------------------------
|                      |  |  |  | Robert A. McCormick                 
|                      |  |  |  | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
#### MRS. JAMES ERWIN WHICHARD, Administratrix of the Estate of JAMES ERWIN WHICHARD, Deceased, v. M. P. LIPE, Trading as LIPE MOTOR LINES.

(Filed 19 May, 1943.)

Appeal by defendant from *Bobbitt, J.,*at 4 January, 1943, Civil Term, of Guilford.

*Gold, McAnally c& Gold for plaintiff, appellee.*

*J. L. Murphy and Sapp & Sapp for defendant, appellant.*

Pee Cueiam.

Tbe plaintiff brought an action against tbe defendant to recover damages for tbe injury and death of her intestate brought about by tbe alleged negligence of tbe defendant. In tbe court below tbe defendant made a motion for judgment as of nonsuit, which was declined. Tbe plaintiff made a recovery, and tbe defendant appealed to this Court, where tbe judgment of tbe court below declining tbe nonsuit was reversed and action dismissed. *Whichard v. Lipe,*221 N. C., 53, 19 S. E. (2d), 14. Soon thereafter tbe plaintiff renewed tbe action, and again recovered in tbe court below. Tbe defendant appealed, assigning various errors.

Upon a bearing of tbe case, tbe Court was evenly divided in opinion, *Schenclc, J.,*not sitting. According to the practice of tbe Court, tbe judgment of tbe court below is affirmed; and tbe decision thereof does not become a precedent. *Elmore v. Amusements,*221 N. C., 535, 19 S. E. (2d), 5; *Outlaw v. Asheville,*215 N. C., 790, 1 S. E. (2d), 559.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                            9

<CIK>                         0001058690
<NAME>                        WASHINGTON BANKING COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1.0000
<CASH>                                         13,608
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          2,460
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                    0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                  804
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     5,859
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         22,470
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           22,013
<LOANS>                                       240,073
<ALLOWANCE>                                     2,362
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                296,997
<DEPOSITS>                                    254,327
<SHORT-TERM>                                   11,200
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             1,380
<LONG-TERM>                                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                       16,300
<OTHER-SE>                                     13,790
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                296,997
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 5,485
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                 387
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   80
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                5,952
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              2,305
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              2,305
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           3,647
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                     326
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 3,056
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   846
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                        617
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                      617
<EPS-BASIC>                                       .15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .14
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                   1.35
<LOANS-NON>                                     1,199
<LOANS-PAST>                                      388
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   52
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                     0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                2,182
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                     171
<RECOVERIES>                                       25
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               2,362
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            2,149
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                           213




</TABLE>
| Skip to contentSocial Security Online | Actuarial Publications |
|---------------------------------------|------------------------|

| www.socialsecurity.gov | Home  FAQs  Contact Us  Search | **Search**  |
|------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------|------------------|

| Office of the Chief Actuary | The 2010 OASDI Trustees Report |
|-----------------------------|--------------------------------|
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                              MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          8,358
<SECURITIES>                                        0         
<RECEIVABLES>                                  48,037
<ALLOWANCES>                                    1,694
<INVENTORY>                                    23,820
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               85,107 
<PP&E>                                        198,622
<DEPRECIATION>                                 93,386
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                363,466
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          53,105
<BONDS>                                       246,830
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                    15,308
<COMMON>                                            0
<OTHER-SE>                                     42,439
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  363,466
<SALES>                                        64,191 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               64,191
<CGS>                                          46,535         
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  46,535 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               14,330
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  177
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              5,625
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (2,296)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (502)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (1,794)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0 
<NET-INCOME>                                  (1,794)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       0
        

</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-10474 Conference Calendar

YVONNE EVETTE BROWN, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus THE TEXAS BOARD OF NURSE EXAMINERS, Defendant-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:01-CV-2315-M

-------------------- February 19, 2003 Before WIENER, EMILIO M. GARZA, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Yvonne Evette Brown (“Brown”) appeals the district court’s dismissal of her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Brown argues that the district court erred in denying her motion for a default judgment against the Texas Board of Nurse Examiners. This court reviews the denial of a default judgment for abuse of discretion. Lewis v. Lynn , 236 F.3d 766, 767 (5th Cir. 2001). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Brown’s motion for a default judgmentNo. 02-10474 -2- because Brown has not demonstrated that the 11-day delay between the Board serving her with a copy of its motion to dismiss and filing the motion in the clerk’s office was sufficiently “extreme” to warrant the “drastic remedy” of a default judgment.
See id. Brown also contends that her case should be reinstated because she was not given an opportunity to respond to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. The record indicates that the district court held that it would consider Brown’s objections if they impacted the issue of whether the court had subject matter jurisdiction, but Brown did not file objections. Consequently, Brown’s argument lacks merit. Brown does not address the district court’s dismissal of her complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. This court “will not raise and discuss legal issues that [an appellant has] failed to assert.” See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner , 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Brown’s failure to identify any error in the district court’s legal analysis or the application of law is the same as if she had not appealed that judgment. Id. Because Brown’s appeal is without merit, and it is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.
1 The Honorable Scott O. Wright, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________ No. 99-1578WM

_____________ United States of America, * * On Appeal from the United Appellee, * States District Court * for the Western District v. * of Missouri. * Aaron Coppenbarger, * [Not To Be Published] * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: December 29, 1999 Filed: January 18, 2000

___________ Before McMILLIAN, RICHARD S. ARNOLD, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Aaron Coppenbarger appeals from the final judgment entered in the District Court 1 upon his guilty plea to conspiring to manufacture methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. The District Court sentenced Coppenbarger to ten years and one month imprisonment and five years supervised release. For reversal, Coppenbarger argues the District Court erred in denying his motion seeking a substantial-assistance-2-

downward departure. We grant the government’s motion to supplement the record on appeal. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the judgment of the District Court. First, the District Court did not err in refusing to grant the downward departure suasponte. See UnitedStates v. Wilkerson , 179 F.3d 1083, 1085 (8th Cir. 1999); UnitedStates v. Kelly , 18 F.3d 612, 617 (8th Cir. 1994). Nor did the District Court err in not compelling the government to file a substantial-assistance departure motion in the absence of a substantial threshold showing that the government’s refusal to file the motionwas in bad faith, irrational, or based on an unconstitutional motive. See Wilkerson , 179 F.3d at 1086. Coppenbarger’s bare allegations that he provided substantial assistance did not make the required showing. See Wade v. United States , 504 U.S. 181, 186 (1992). Finally, the District Court did not improperly rely on the possibility that the government would in the future file a motion for reduction of sentence under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(b), as Coppenbarger failed to demonstrate any right to a substantial-assistance motion at sentencing. See United States v. Licona-Lopez , 163 F.3d 1040, 1043 (8th Cir. 1998). Accordingly, we affirm. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
MOORE
& ASSOCIATES, CHARTERED


ACCOUNTANTS AND
ADVISORS


PCAOB
REGISTERED

















CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM











We
consent to the use, in the statement on Form 10-K of Blue Earth Solutions, Inc.
(A Development Stage Company) of our report dated June 23, 2009 on our audit of
the financial statements of Blue Earth Solutions, Inc. (A Development Stage
Company) as of March 31, 2009 and March 31, 2008, and the related statements of
operations, stockholders’ equity (deficit) and cash flows for the year ended
March 31, 2009, from inception on February 5, 2008 through March 31, 2008 and
from inception on February 5, 2008 through March 31, 2009, and the reference to
us under the caption “Experts.”













/s/ Moore & Associates,
Chartered


Moore
& Associates Chartered


Las
Vegas, Nevada


July 13,
2009



















6490 West Desert Inn
Rd,Las
Vegas,NV89146(702) 253-7499 Fax (702)
253-7501
## Benefits in current payment status

Office of the Chief Actuary 

Beneficiary Data

beneficiary type

family type

age

benefit level

primary beneficiaries

**Beneficiaries receiving benefitsat the end of December 2023**All beneficiaries67,076,966Retired workers and dependents52,729,819Survivors5,833,423Disabled workers and dependents8,513,724**Counting dual-entitled beneficiaries**If a beneficiary is entitled to both a *primary* benefit (as a retired or disabled worker) and another benefit (say a spousal benefit) payable from the same trust fund, then he or she is counted only once in our statistics as a primary beneficiary.	 Footer menu
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jeffrey Sloan, Appellant.

[772 NYS2d 853]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Gazzillo, J.), rendered September 24, 2002, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see Anders v California,*386 US *614738 [1967]; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631 [1976]; *cf. People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606 [1979]). Ritter, J.P., S. Miller, Townes, Crane, and Rivera, JJ., concur.
IIB 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5714 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 3, 2014 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, 

and Forestry 

AN ACT 

To permit commercial applicators of pesticides to create, 

retain, submit, and convey pesticide application-related 

records, reports, data, and other information in electronic 

form. 

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


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 5714 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Pest Management 

3 Records Modernization Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. USE OF ELECTRONIC RECORDS BY COMMERCIAL 

5 APPLICATORS OF PESTICIDES TO COMPLY 

6 WITH RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING RE7 QUIREMENTS. 

8 Section 1491 of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, 

9 and Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 136i–1) is amended by 

10 adding at the end the following new subsection: 

11 ‘‘(h) ELECTRONIC RECORDKEEPING AND REPORT12 ING.—Notwithstanding any contrary provision of Federal, 

13 State, or local law, commercial applicators of pesticides, 

14 including commercial applicators of restricted use pes15 ticides, may create, retain, submit, and convey a pesticide 

16 application-related record, report, data, or other informa17 tion in electronic form in order to satisfy any requirement 

18 for such creation, retention, submission, or conveyance, re19 spectively, under any Federal, State, or local law.’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives December 2, 

2014. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5705 

AN ACT 

To modify certain provisions relating to the Propane 

Education and Research Council. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 5705 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Propane Education 

3 and Research Enhancement Act of 2014’’. 

4 SEC. 2. PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE PROPANE EDU5 CATION AND RESEARCH COUNCIL. 

6 (a) FUNCTIONS OF PROPANE EDUCATION AND RE7 SEARCH COUNCIL.—Section 5(f) of the Propane Edu8 cation and Research Act of 1996 (15 U.S.C. 6404(f)) is 

9 amended in the first sentence by inserting ‘‘to train pro10 pane distributors and consumers in strategies to mitigate 

11 negative effects of future propane price spikes,’’ after ‘‘to 

12 enhance consumer and employee safety and training,’’. 

13 (b) MARKET SURVEY AND CONSUMER PROTECTION

14 PRICE ANALYSIS.—Section 9(a) of the Propane Education 

15 and Research Act of 1996 (15 U.S.C. 6408(a)) is amend16 ed in the first sentence by striking ‘‘only data provided 

17 by the Energy Information Administration’’ and inserting 

18 ‘‘the refiner price to end users of consumer grade propane, 

19 as published by the Energy Information Administration’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives December 9, 

2014. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5705 

AN ACT 

Propane Education and Research Council. 

To modify certain provisions relating to the