alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

YOLANDA DIANNE CERECERES

,

Appellant,

v.

FRANCISCO CERECERES

,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 20

- 00 092

- CV

Appeal from the

3 83rd District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 2018DCM0285 )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This appeal is before the Court on its own motion to determine whether it should be

dismissed for want of prosecution. Finding that Appellant, Yolanda Dianne Cereceres, has failed

to pay the case filing fee, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution.

Appellant did not pay the case filing fee of $205 .00 when s he filed her notice of appeal,

and there is nothing in the record before us to indicate Appellant is indigent. The Clerk of the Court

sent Appellant two requests for payment of the case filing fee on March 30, 2020, and April 22,

2020 . Both letters notified Appellant that failure to pay the case filing fee within twenty days could

result in dismissal of the appeal for want of prosecution pursuant to T EX .R.A PP .P. 42.3(b) and (c).

Appellant has not paid the filing fee or otherwise responded to our notice s . Pursuant to Rule 42.3(b)

and (c), we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See T EX .R.A PP .P. 42.3 (b), (c).2 August 12, 2020

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice

Before Alley, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ.
#### UNIVERSAL C. I. T. CREDIT CORPORATION v. REID MOTOR COMPANY and CHARLES E. GOODMAN.

(Filed 3 November, 1943.)

Appeal by defendant Goodman from *Burgwyn, Special Judge,*at June Term, 1943, of Cabarrus.

Appeal dismissed.

*O. M. Llewellyn for plaintiff, appellee.*

*W. S. Bogle for defendant, appellant.*

Per Curiam.

The motion of plaintiff, appellee, to dismiss the appeal, for that the record and case on appeal fail to show summons or organiza*860tion of the court, must be allowed. Rule 19; *Brown v. Johnson,*207 N. C., 807, 178 S. E., 570. Nor are there stipulations to cure the omissions in the record.

However, we have examined the record as presented, and find no error in the trial. The evidence was sufficient to carry the case to the jury, and to support the verdict in favor of the plaintiff: on the determinative issues submitted. The charge of the court was free from error.

Appeal dismissed.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5763 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5763

  To designate the Department of Veterans Affairs clinic in Billings, 
  Montana, as the ``Bear Root Department of Veterans Affairs Clinic''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 20, 2014

  Mr. Daines introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To designate the Department of Veterans Affairs clinic in Billings, 
  Montana, as the ``Bear Root Department of Veterans Affairs Clinic''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF BEAR ROOT DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 
              CLINIC.

    (a) Designation.--The Department of Veterans Affairs clinic located 
at 1766 Majestic Lane in Billings, Montana, shall after the date of the 
enactment of this Act be known and designated as the ``Bear Root 
Department of Veterans Affairs Clinic''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in any law, regulation, map, 
document, record, or other paper of the United States to the clinic 
referred to in subsection (a) shall be considered to be a reference to 
the ``Bear Root Department of Veterans Affairs Clinic''.
                                 <all>
```
#### CONSTANCE ZAYTOUN LAMAR v. JOHN HANCOCK MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation

(Filed 25 February, 1959.)

Insurance § 42—

Death of a soldier in action during the “Korean Conflict” occurs while he is in the military service in time of war, “whether such war jbe declared or undeclared” within the exclusion of a double indemnity provision in 'a life insurance policy.

Moore, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Appeal by plaintiff from *Moore (C. L.) J.,*at November 1958 Term of GeaveN.

Civil action to recover on insurance policy No. 4390754, known as an ordinary insurance policy issued by defendant, on the life of Thomas C. Lamar in principal amount of $5,000.00 payable at his death to Constance Zaytoun Lamar, his wife, with “supplementary provision” for additional benefit of $5,000.00 on death caused “di*644reotly, independently and exclusively of all other causes, by a bodily injury sustained solely by external, violent, and accidental means * * * *”*subject to the condition that no such additional benefit will be payable “if death * * * occurs while 'the insured is in military, naval or air service * * * in time of war, whether such war be declared or undeclared.”

And the parties stipulate that insured was a reserve officer in the United Statés Army, recalled into service, occasioned by what is commonly called “The Korean Conflict,” and ordered to Korea by Presidential Proclamation, and thereafter “on or about October 17, 1951, was killed in action during said armed conflict which was then in progress between the Armed Forces of 'the United States and .those of North Korea, as a result of being struck by shrapnel or gun fire.”

And defendant has paid plaintiff, as .beneficiary under said policy, the sum of Five Thousand Dollars, but has refused to. pay. any additional amount by reason of the supplemental provision 'attached to the policy hereinabove set out.

The parties waived a jury trial, and filed a stipulation containing the facts, and asked the court to declare the law arising thereon and to enter judgment accordingly. Thereupon the trial judge held that plaintiff is not entitled to recover herein, and that defendant i.s entitled to recover of plaintiff and surety on her cost bond all costs incurred herein as taxed by the Clerk of Superior Court.

Plaintiff excepted thereto and appeals to Supreme Court and assigns error.

*Barden, Stith & McCotter for plaintiff, appellant.*

*Varser, McIntyre, Henry & Hedgpeth for defendant, appellee.*

PER Curiam.

Upon the facts stipulated by the parties, the conclusion reached by the trial court follows as clearly as does the night follow the day. Citation of authority is not required to sustain the judgment below. Hence it is

Affirmed.

MooRE, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
EX-35.1
(logo) Bank of America

Bank of America
475 CrossPoint Parkway
PO Box 9000
Getzville, NY 14068-9000


Annual Statement as to Compliance

Banc of America Funding 2007-2 Trust

I, H. Randall Chestnut, a Senior Vice President of Bank of America, National
Association (the "Servicer"), hereby certify pursuant to the Section 2.17 of
the Servicing Agreement, dated February 27, 2007 (the "Agreement"), between Banc
of America Funding Corporation, as Depositor, and the Servicer, that: (a) a
review of the Servicer's activities during calendar year 2007 and of the
Servicer's performance under the Agreement has been made under my supervision;
and (b) to the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has
fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects
throughout calendar year 2007.


March 26, 2008


Bank of America, N.A.
as Servicer

By: /s/ H. Randall Chestnut
Name: H. Randall Chestnut
Title: Senior Vice President
| Skip to contentSocial Security Online | Office of the Chief Actuary |
|---------------------------------------|-----------------------------|

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

| Office of the Chief Actuary | Actuary Site Map |
|-----------------------------|------------------|

|        |
|--------|
|   | Privacy Policy      | Website Policies        & Other Important Information      | Site Map     Last reviewed or modified Wednesday Nov 26, 2008 | Need Larger Text? |
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 241 (Friday, December 15, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 64423]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30589]



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


DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Plutonium Finishing 
Plant Stabilization, Hanford Site, Richland, Benton County, WA, Notice 
of Availability and Announcement of Public Hearing

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Extension of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE) announced the availability of 
the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Plutonium 
Finishing Plant (PFP) Stabilization, Hanford Site, Richland, Benton 
County, in the Federal Register on December 5, 1995 (60 FR 62244). This 
announcement extends the date for the end of the comment period 
provided in that Federal Register announcement.

DATES: DOE invites comments on the Draft PFP Stabilization EIS (DOE/
EIS-0244-D) from all interested parties. Written comments or 
suggestions regarding the adequacy, accuracy, and completeness of the 
Draft EIS will be considered in preparing the Final EIS and should be 
submitted (postmarked) by January 23, 1996. Written comments received 
after that date will be considered to the degree practicable.

ADDRESSES: Written comments or questions concerning the Draft PFP 
Stabilization EIS should be directed to: Mr. Ben F. Burton, U.S. 
Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Attn: PFP 
Stabilization EIS, P.O. Box 550, MSIN B1-42, Richland, Washington 
99352, (509) 946-3609, (800) 249-8181.
Ben F. Burton,
PFP Document Manager.
[FR Doc. 95-30589 Filed 12-14-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-M
#### STATE v. JAMES SERMONS.

(Filed 5 January, 1938.)

Criminal law § 80—

Where defendant, convicted of a capital felony and allowed to appeal *in forma pauperis,*fails to make out and serve his statement of case on appeal within the time allowed, he loses his right to bring up the “case on appeal” and the appeal will he dismissed on motion of the Attorney-General after an examination of the record proper discloses no error on its face.

Motion by State to docket and dismiss appeal.

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

*No counsel'for defendant.*

Stact, C. J.

At tbe September Term, 1937, of Forsyth Superior Court, tbe defendant herein, James Sermons, was tried upon an indictment charging him with tbe murder of one Carlile Miller, which resulted in a conviction of murder in tbe first degree and sentence of death by asphyxiation. From tbe judgment thus entered tbe prisoner gave notice of appeal to tbe Supreme Court and was allowed 40 days within which to make out and serve statement of case on appeal, and tbe solicitor was given 30 days thereafter to prepare and file exceptions or countercase, but nothing has been done towards perfecting tbe appeal, *albeit*tbe prisoner was allowed to appeal *in forma pauperis,*and tbe time for serving statement of case on appeal has now expired. *S. v. Brown,*206 N. C., 747, 175 S. E., 116.

*768Having lost bis- right to bring up the “case on appeal,” *S. v. Moore,*210 N. C., 686, the prisoner is in no position to resist tbe motion of the Attorney-General to docket and dismiss. *S. v. Johnson,*205 N. C., 610, 172, S. E., 219; *S. v. Rector,*203 N. C., 9, 164 S. E., 339. As is customary in capital cases, however, we have examined the record to see that no error appears upon the face thereof, such errors, if any, .being cognizable *sua sponte. S. v. Robinson, ante,*536.

We have discovered no defect on the face of the record proper. *S. v. Edney,*202 N. C., 706, 164 S. E., 23; *S. v. Hamlet,*206 N. C., 568, 174 S. E., 451.

Motion allowed. Appeal dismissed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

MICHAEL HOLLEY (PRO SE),

Petitioner

v.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF 

PHILADELPHIA,

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 142 EM 2017

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 14th day of February, 2018, the Application for Leave to File 

Original Process is GRANTED, and the Motion for Writ of Mandamus is DENIED.
A96A0612.

#### CARTER et al. v. FULTON-DeKALB COUNTY HOSPITAL AUTHORITY.

(474 SE2d 83)

McMURRAY, Presiding Judge.

This is the second appearance of this wrongful death and survival action brought against defendant Fulton-DeKalb Hospital Authority d/b/a Grady Emergency Medical Service (“the Hospital”). Following an automobile accident, plaintiffs’ decedent, Paulette Bryant, died from internal bleeding, allegedly as a result of negligent treatment and a 25-minute delay in transporting her by the Hospital’s emergency medical transportation service. The trial court originally granted summary judgment, on the basis of sovereign immunity. This Court “remand[ed] this case to the trial court to allow the parties to perfect the record on the issue of insurance coverage which could constitute a waiver of sovereign immunity, after which the trial court should enter an appropriate order consistent with this [Court’s] opinion and [with the decision of the Supreme Court of Georgia in *Litterilla v. Hosp. Auth. of Fulton County,*262 Ga. 34 (413 SE2d 718)].” *Carter v. Fulton-DeKalb County Hosp. Auth.,*209 Ga. App. 384, 387 (4) (433 SE2d 433) (physical precedent). Before the trial court entered an order upon remand, however, the Supreme Court decided *Thomas v. Hosp. Auth. of Clarke County,*264 Ga. 40 (440 SE2d 195), holding that hospital authorities are not entitled to sovereign immunity. Id. at 42 (2). Nonetheless, the trial court later granted summary judgment in favor of the Hospital based on sovereign immunity. This appeal followed. *Held:*

In *Fulton-DeKalb Hosp. Auth. v. Walker,*216 Ga. App. 786, 787 (1) (456 SE2d 97), this Court was not able to apply the rule in *Thomas v. Hosp. Auth. of Clarke County,*264 Ga. 40, supra, because an earlier appeal in the same case, *Walker v. Fulton-DeKalb Hosp. Auth.,*200 Ga. App. 750 (409 SE2d 529), established “the law of the case,” i.e., the plaintiffs could not contend that the hospital authority was not entitled to sovereign immunity. *Fulton-DeKalb Hosp. Auth. v. Walker,*216 Ga. App. 786, 787 (1), 788, supra. The circumstances in the case sub judice are different, however, since this Court did not reach the issue of whether the Hospital is entitled to sovereign immunity in *Carter v. Fulton-DeKalb County Hosp. Auth.,*209 Ga. App. 384, 387 (4), supra. Consequently, “the law of the case” was not established with regard to the Hospital’s sovereign immunity defense, and as a consequence, the trial court was bound to apply the rule that county hospital authorities are not entitled to sovereign immunity. See *Thomas v. Hosp. Auth. of Clarke County,*264 Ga. 40, 42 (2), supra. Accordingly, the trial court erred in granting the Hospital’s motion for summary judgment.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Johnson and Ruffin, JJ, concur.*

*221Decided June 26, 1996

Reconsideration denied July 11, 1996.

*Smolar, Roseman, Brantley & Seifter, Barry L. Roseman,*for appellants.

*Alston & Bird, James C. Grant, Robert D. McCallum, Jr, Candace N Smith,*for appellee.
#### Julia A. W. Palmer, Appellant, v. Thomson Kingsford and another, Respondents, Impleaded, etc.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Hardin, P. J.
### I N THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FI F TH CI RCUI T

No. 12-10748 Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. FAUSTINO BENITEZ-SERVIN, Defendant-Appellant

A ppeal from the United States District Court f or the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:12-CR-19-1
Before DAVIS, DENNIS, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appo i nted to represent Faustino BenitezServin has moved f

or leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. C

alifornia , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United S tates v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Benitez-Servin has not filed a response. W e have r eviewed counsel’s brief a nd t h e r elevant portions o f the record r eflected t h erein. We

concur with counsel’s assessment that the a ppeal presents no n onfrivolous issue for appellate revi e w . A c c o rdingly, counsel’s motion for leave t o withdraw is U n i t e d S t a te s C o u r t o f A p p e al s

F i f t h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Aug ust 26, 2013 Ly l e W . Cay ce Clerk

* Purs uant to 5 T H C I R
. R

. 47. 5, the court has d eterm ined that this op inion should not be p ublis hed and is not p reced ent excep t und er the lim ited circum s tances s et forth in 5 T H C I R
. R. 47. 5. 4. Case: 12-10748 Document: 00512354029 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/26/2013No. 12-10748

G RANTED, counsel i s excused from further responsibilities herein, a n d t h e APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 T H C I R
. R. 42.2.

2 Case: 12-10748 Document: 00512354029 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/26/2013
## The 2019 OASDI Trustees Report

Office of the Chief Actuary

Actuarial Publications

- Table of Contents
- List of Tables
- List of Figures
- Index       LIST OF FIGURES	II. OVERVIEW  II.D1	Short-Range OASI and DI Combined Trust Fund Ratio  II.D2	OASDI Income, Cost, and Expenditures as Percentages of Taxable Payroll  II.D3	Number of Covered Workers Per OASDI Beneficiary  II.D4	OASDI Cost and Non-interest Income as a Percentage of GDP  II.D5	Cumulative Scheduled OASDI Income Less Cost,From Program Inception Through Years 2018‐2093  II.D6	Long-Range OASI and DI Combined Trust Fund Ratios Under Alternative Scenarios  II.D7	Long-Range OASI and DI Combined Trust Fund Ratios From Stochastic Modeling  II.D8	OASDI Annual Balances: 2018 and 2019 Trustees Reports	IV. ACTUARIAL ESTIMATES  IV.A1	Short-Range OASI and DI Trust Fund Ratios  IV.B1	Long-Range OASI and DI Annual Income Rates and Cost Rates  IV.B2	Number of OASDI Beneficiaries Per 100 Covered Workers  IV.B3	Long-Range OASI and DI Trust Fund Ratios  IV.B4	OASDI Annual Balances: 2018 and 2019 Trustees Reports	V. ASSUMPTIONS AND METHODS UNDERLYING ACTUARIAL ESTIMATES  V.C1	Primary-Insurance-Amount Formula for Those Newly Eligible in 2019  V.C2	OASI Maximum-Family-Benefit Formula for Those Newly Eligible in 2019  V.C3	DI Disability Incidence Rates, 1970-2095  V.C4	DI Disability Termination Rates, 1970-2095  V.C5	Comparison of DI Disability Incidence Rates, Termination Rates and Conversion Ratios Under Intermediate Assumptions, 1970-2095  V.C6	DI Disability Prevalence Rates, 1970-2095	VI. APPENDICES  VI.E1	Long-Range OASDI Cost Rates From Stochastic Modeling  VI.E2	Long-Range OASDI Trust Fund Ratios From Stochastic Modeling  VI.E3	OASDI Cost Rates: Comparison of Stochastic to Low-Cost, Intermediate, and High-Cost Alternatives  VI.E4	OASDI Trust Fund (Unfunded Obligation) Ratios: Comparison of Stochastic to Low-Cost, Intermediate, and High-Cost Alternatives  VI.G1	Estimated OASDI Income and Cost in CPI-indexed 2019 Dollars, Based on Intermediate Assumptions       Footer menu
**EXHIBIT 32**

**CERTIFICATION OFCEO AND CFO PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-Kof Dendrite International, Inc. (the “Company”) for the year endedDecember 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission onthe date hereof (the “Report”), John E. Bailye, as Chief Executive Officer ofthe Company, and Jeffrey J. Bairstow, as Chief Financial Officer of theCompany, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. (section) 1350, asadopted pursuant to (section) 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, tothe best of his knowledge:

(1)           TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)           Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| JOHN E. BAILYE      |                                                 |
|---------------------|------------------------------------------------------|
| Name:               | John E. Bailye                                       |
| Title:              | Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer    |
| Date:               | March 2X, 2007                                  |
|                |                                                 |
|                |                                                 |
| JEFFREY J. BAIRSTOW |                                                 |
| Name:               | Jeffrey J. Bairstow                                  |
| Title:              | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
| Date:               | March 2X, 2007                                  |
|                     |                                                      |  |

 

 

----
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

United States Space Command

USSPACECOM

                - 
                - 
                - 
                - 
                - 

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  About    -  Mission         
  -  Warfighting Units         
  -  Frequently Asked Questions         
  -  Strategic Vision         
  -  Emblem 
-  Leaders    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Command Senior Enlisted Leader         
  -  Chief of Staff 
-  Support    -  Inspector General         
  -  FOIA      -  Making a FOIA Request         
    -  Reading Room 
  -  Equal Opportunity Coordinator         
  -  Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Victim Advocate         
  -  Command Chaplain         
  -  Commandant         
  -  Resilience Program 
-  Newsroom    -  News      -  FY2025 Testimony 
  -  Photos and Videos         
  -  Speeches         
  -  Publications 
-  Contact		 
-  Partnerships and Outreach    -  Academic Engagement Enterprise      -  AEE Articles of Interest         
    -  AEE Members         
    -  AEE Multimedia 
  -  Careers      -  Civilians         
    -  Internships 
  -  Industry Engagement Portal 
-  Newcomers    -  Newcomer Information         
  -  Checking In 

# PHOTOS ANDVIDEOS

Search

Search

                                - All Images 
                                - Other 
                                - Space Shuttle 

                                - Upload Date
                                - Photo Date
                                - Title

----

Download Image: Full Size (0.55 MB)

Tags:

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
EX-10.1


  Exhibit 10.1

  SECOND AMENDMENT
TO
NUTANIX, INC. SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED OUTSIDE DIRECTOR COMPENSATION POLICY

  Adopted and approved September 26, 2022

   

  The Nutanix, Inc. Second Amended and Restated Outside Director Compensation Policy, effective June 16, 2021 and as amended by the First Amendment effective March 30, 2022 (the “Policy”), is hereby amended as follows:

  1. Section 1 of the Policy is hereby amended by replacing “$87,500” opposite “Non‐Executive Board Chair:” with “$107,500”.

  2. Except as otherwise amended, the Policy is hereby confirmed in all other respects.

  3. This Second Amendment is effective as of September 26, 2022.