alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10
- 12
- 00451
- CR EX PARTE JOSEPH MADI SON

From the 361st District Court Brazos County, Texas Trial Court No.

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Joseph Madison requests an out

- of

- time appeal in this original proceeding. By
let ter dated December 12, 2012, the Clerk of this Court notified Madison that the proceeding was subject to dismissal because it appeared this Court did not have jurisdiction to grant an out of time appeal. See Wallace v. State , 2007 Tex. App. LEXIS 3203 (Te x. App.

— Waco Apr. 25, 2007, no pet.) (“The appropriate vehicle for seeking an

out

- of

- time appeal is by writ of habeas corpus from the Court of Criminal Appeals pursuant to article 11.07 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. T EX

. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC

. A NN . art. 11 .07 (Vernon 2005); Portley v. State , 89 S.W.3d 188, 189 (Tex. App.

— Texarkana 2002, no pet.); Reyes v. State , 883 S.W.2d 291, 293 n.2 (Tex. App.

— El Paso 1994, no pet.).”).Ex parte Madison Page 2

Madison was further warned that the Court would dismiss the appeal unless,
within 2 1 days of the date of the letter, a response was filed showing grounds for continuing the appeal. More than 21 days have passed and Madison has not filed a
response. This appeal is dismissed.

TOM GRAY Chief Justice Before Chief Justice Gray , Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins Appeal dismissed Opinion delivered and filed January 17, 2013 Do not publish [OT06]
Order entered December 3, 2020

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-20-00319-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF A.B.B., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 305th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. JC-17-00832

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s Rule 9.2(c)(5) motion for leave to late file 

her corrected brief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.2(c)(5). We GRANT the motion and 

ORDER the brief received December 2, 2020 filed as of the date of this order. 

Appellees’ brief(s) shall be filed no later than January 4, 2021.

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE
exv10w47



 






Exhibit 10.47




AMENDMENT “V” TO THE




CAPITAL EQUIPMENT AND SERVICE AGREEMENT




between




INTEL CORPORATION




and




FORMFACTOR INC.




INTEL AGREEMENT NUMBER C-05673




Amendment Effective Date: 1/08/2005




WHEREAS, Intel Corporation and FormFactor, Inc. (“Seller”), have entered into a Capital Equipment
and Service Agreement, Intel Agreement No. C-05673 (hereinafter called “Agreement”) dated 1/8/01,
as amended by Amendment(s) O dated 1-22-01, Amendment P dated 4-23-01, Amendment Q dated 9-3-01,
Amendment R dated 2/4/02, Amendment S dated 6/30/03; Amendment T dated 1/8/04, and by Amendment U
dated 9/1/04 and



WHEREAS, the parties wish to amend the Agreement to extend the Term of the Agreement through
7/8/2005 as forth in this Amendment “V”.



THEREFORE, for valuable consideration, the adequacy and receipt of which are hereby acknowledged,
the parties agree as follows:




	1.  	PRE-ESTABLISHED TERMS





All Terms and conditions of the Agreement remain in full force and effect and apply to this
Amendment, unless specifically modified below.




	2.  	AGREEMENT MODIFICATIONS





The parties agree to extend the Term of the Agreement, including all of the aforementioned
amendments thereto, through July 8, 2005.



AGREED:




	 	 	 
	INTEL CORPORATION	 	FORMFACTOR, INC.
	 
	By: /s/ MIKE DICKEN

	 	By: /s/ PETER B. MATTHEWS
	 

	 	 
	

	 	 
	Mike Dicken

	 	Peter B. Mathews
	 

	 	 
	(Printed Name)




	 	(Printed Name)
	Commodity Manager

	 	VP — Worldwide Sales
	 

	 	 
	(Title)




	 	(Title)
	Dec 13th, 2004

	 	January 3rd, 2005
	 

	 	 
	(Date)

	 	(Date)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                          20,144
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,634
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                26,778
<PP&E>                                              21
<DEPRECIATION>                                       1
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 232,526
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,087
<BONDS>                                        123,928
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        11,226
<OTHER-SE>                                      90,285
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   101,511
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 9,395
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,958
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,565
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,437
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,437
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .13
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Katherine Gatsas,

Plaintiff

v. Civil No. 05-cv-315-SM

Manchester School District a/k/a

Administrative Unit No. 37,

Defendant

O R D E R

Plaintiff’s assented to motion to allow Attorney Leslie H.

Johnson to withdraw as counsel to plaintiff (document no. 102) is

granted.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

August 22, 2008

cc: Leslie H. Johnson, Esq.

Kathleen C. Peahl, Esq.

Case 1:05-cv-00315-SM Document 103 Filed 08/22/08 Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 87 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  1d Session

                             H. J. RES. 87

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

Approving the site at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, for the development of a 
 repository for the disposal of high-level radioactive waste and spent 
    nuclear fuel, pursuant to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
107th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. J. RES. 87

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
Approving the site at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, for the development of a 
 repository for the disposal of high-level radioactive waste and spent 
    nuclear fuel, pursuant to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That there hereby is approved 
the site at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, for a repository, with respect to 
which a notice of disapproval was submitted by the Governor of the 
State of Nevada on April 8, 2002.

            Passed the House of Representatives May 8, 2002.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">T &amp; S Medical Supply Corp., as Assignee of Lacina Koller, Appellant, <br><br>against<br><br>Travelers Insurance Company, Respondent.</font></b></div><br><br><p>The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for appellant.Law Offices of Aloy O. Ibuzor (Allison H. Farkas of counsel), for respondent.</p><p>Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Steven Z. Mostofsky, J.), entered January 27, 2016. The order granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.</p><p>ORDERED that the order is reversed, with $30 costs, and defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.</p><p>In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the action was premature because plaintiff had failed to provide requested verification. By order entered January 27, 2016, the Civil Court granted defendant's motion.</p><p>In support of its motion, defendant established that it had timely mailed its verification request and follow-up verification request (<a href="../2008/2008_04072.htm" target="_blank"><i>see St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co.</i>, 50 AD3d 1123</a> [2008]). Defendant also demonstrated prima facie that it had not received the requested verification and, thus, that plaintiff's action is premature (<a href="../2005/2005_09484.htm" target="_blank"><i>see Central Suffolk Hosp. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co.</i>, 24 AD3d 492</a> [2005]). However, in opposition to the motion, plaintiff submitted an affidavit from plaintiff's owner, which affidavit was sufficient to give rise to a presumption that the requested verification had been mailed to, and received by, defendant (<i>see Residential Holding Corp. v Scottsdale Ins. Co.</i>, 286 AD2d 679 [2001]). In light of the foregoing, there is a triable issue of fact as to whether this action is premature (<a href="../2015/2015_51776.htm" target="_blank"><i>see Compas Med., P.C. v Praetorian Ins. Co.</i>, 49 Misc 3d 152</a>[A], 2015 NY Slip Op <font color="FF0000">[*2]</font>51776[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th &amp; 13th Jud Dists 2015]).</p><p>Accordingly, the order is reversed and defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.</p><p>PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and ELLIOT, JJ., concur.</p><br>ENTER:<br>Paul Kenny<br>Chief Clerk<br>Decision Date: November 09, 2018<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                             525
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,496
<ALLOWANCES>                                       629
<INVENTORY>                                     12,410
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                23,755
<PP&E>                                           4,769
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,869
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  32,646
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           14,649
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            5,000
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,502
<OTHER-SE>                                      (4,527)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    32,646
<SALES>                                         12,847
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                12,847
<CGS>                                            9,650
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    9,650
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,263
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    88
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 974
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (2,101)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (2,101)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (2,101)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.71)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.71)
        

</TABLE>
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7026 

To amend the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 to require States to include 

a photograph on electronic benefit cards issued to provide supplemental 

nutrition assistance program benefits. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 9, 2022 

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

Committee on Agriculture 

A BILL 

To amend the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 to require 

States to include a photograph on electronic benefit cards 

issued to provide supplemental nutrition assistance program benefits. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘ID for EBT Act of 

5 2022’’. 

6 SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS. 

7 Section 7(h)(9) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 

8 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2016(h)(9)) is amended— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7026 IH

1 (1) in the heading by striking ‘‘OPTIONAL’’ and 

2 inserting ‘‘MANDATORY’’; 

3 (2) in subparagraph (A) by striking ‘‘may’’ and 

4 inserting ‘‘shall’’; and 

5 (3) in subparagraph (B) by striking ‘‘If’’ and 

6 all that follows through ‘‘(A), the’’ and inserting 

7 ‘‘The’’. 

8 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

9 This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall 

10 take effect 180 days after the date of the enactment of 

11 this Act. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

Appeal of

- )

)

Northrop Grumman Corporation ) ASBCA No. 61337

)

Under Contract No. F19628

- 00

- C

- 0100 et al. )

APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT : Stephen J. McBrady

, Esq.

Charles Baek, Esq.

Crowell & Moring LLP

Washington, DC

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Arthur M. Taylor, Esq.

DCMA Chief Trial Attorney

Srikanti Schaffner, Esq.

Trial Attorney

Defense Contract Management Agency

Carson, CA

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice.

Dated: June 15 , 2020

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 61337

, Appeal of Northrop

Grumman Corporation , rendered in conformance with the Board’s Charter.

Dated: June 16, 2020 JOHN J. THRASHER

Administrative Judge

Chairman

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals

PAULLA K. GATES

- LEWIS

Recorder, Armed Services

Board of Contract Appeals
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Gregory Alan Gaylor

v. Case No. 04-cv-372-PB

Warden, NHSP

O R D E R

Petitioner’s claims are subject to a one-year statute of

limitation. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). The limitation period

in this case began to run on January 13, 2000 when the time for

seeking certiorari review of his conviction expired. Petitioner

filed a federal habeas corpus petition on January 9, 2001. That 

petition was dismissed on May 31, 2001, however, because

petitioner failed to exhaust his state court remedies. 

Petitioner also filed various motions and petitions with the

state supreme court seeking reconsideration, clarification, and

habeas corpus relief. These motions and petitions remained

pending from April 25, 2001 until August 14, 2001. Petitioner 

Case 1:04-cv-00372-PB Document 36 Filed 09/10/05 Page 1 of 3
-2-

did not make any further filings in state or federal court until

April 17, 2002 when he filed a petition for habeas corpus relief

in state superior court. 

Petitioner’s current claims appear to be time-barred even if

I assume that the statute of limitation was tolled between

January 9, 2001 and August 14, 2001 because more than one year

passed with no matters pending between the time when the statute

of limitation began to run and the time when petitioner filed his

current petition.

I nevertheless decline to grant respondent’s motion for

summary judgment because he has failed to address various

arguments petitioner makes in response to the motion. In

particular, respondent has failed to address petitioner’s

contentions that: (1) he is entitled to reopen his prior federal

petition under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); (2) the statute of

limitation was equitably tolled because he is “actually

innocent”; (3) his claims are timely because he could not earlier

have discovered the factual predicate for his claims through the

exercise of reasonable diligence; and (4) his extradition claim

is not subject to the one-year limitation period. 

Case 1:04-cv-00372-PB Document 36 Filed 09/10/05 Page 2 of 3
-3-

Respondent’s motion (document no. 31) is denied without

prejudice. On or before October 5, 2005, respondent shall file a

new motion for summary judgment addressing the issues identified

in this Order. 

SO ORDERED.

________________________

Paul Barbadoro

U.S. District Judge

September 10, 2005

cc: Gregory Alan Gaylor, pro se

Karen E. Huntress, Esq.

Case 1:04-cv-00372-PB Document 36 Filed 09/10/05 Page 3 of 3
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002



In connection with
this Annual Report of All American Pet Company, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Barry Schwartz, Chief Executive
Officer and Principal Financial and Accounting 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 results of operations
of the Company.



| | /S/ Barry Schwartz                                
| | --------------------------------------------------
| | Barry Schwartz                                    
| | CEO and Principal Financial and Accounting Officer
| |                                                   
| | Date: June  17, 2013
Exhibit 32.2


CERTIFICATION 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 Report of Puget Sound Energy, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the “Form 10-Q”), I, Eric M. Markell, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




(1)
The Form 10-Q 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.











Date: July 28, 2009/s/ Eric M. MarkellEric M. MarkellExecutive Vice President andChief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 175 (Tuesday, September 9, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 52411]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-20886]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[UTU 6443, UTU 012532, and UTU 0146037]


Public Land Order No. 7708; Partial Revocation of Public Land 
Order Nos. 1391, 4060, and 4567; Utah; Correction

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Correction.

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

SUMMARY: This action corrects an error in the land description 
published as FR Doc. E8-12424 in the Federal Register, 73 FR 31880-
31881, June 4, 2008.
    On page 31881, column 1, line 13 from the top, which reads ``Salt 
Lake Meridian'' is hereby corrected to read ``Uintah Special 
Meridian''.
    On page 31881, below ``b. Hawthorne Campground,'' column 1, line 20 
from the top, and above ``T. 8 S., R. 5 E.,'' column 1, line 21 from 
the top, insert ``Salt Lake Meridian''.

    Dated: August 20, 2008.
Jeff Rawson,
Associate State Director.
[FR Doc. E8-20886 Filed 9-8-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-P
Summary of Director Compensation



 EXHIBIT 10.40 
  
 SUMMARY OF DIRECTOR COMPENSATION 
  
 Each of the independent directors of Dex Media, Inc. (the “Company”) receives a $60,000 annual cash retainer. In
addition, each of the Company’s independent directors receives $1,250 for each Board of Directors meeting attended and an additional $1,000 for each committee meeting attended ($625 in the case of telephonic Board meetings and $500 in the case
of telephonic committee meetings). The chairman of the Audit Committee receives an additional $10,000 annual cash retainer, while the chairmen of our other committees will receive an additional $7,500 annual cash retainer. Each of the Company’s
independent directors who serves in one of our committees, other than as a chairman, receives an additional $5,000 annual cash retainer. 
  
 On February 17, 2005, the Board of Directors determined that upon joining the Board of Directors, each independent director will receive: (i) a one-time
grant of 10,000 restricted shares of the Company’s common stock that vest in equal installments on the first, second and third anniversaries of the date of grant and (ii) an additional 12,500 restricted shares of the Company’s common stock
that vest in equal installments on the first, second and third anniversaries of the date of grant. Prior thereto, each independent director was granted 12,500 restricted shares of the Company’s common stock upon joining the Board of Directors,
with such shares vesting in equal installments on the first, second and third anniversaries of the grant date. 
  
 Non-independent directors do not receive any compensation as directors. 
  
 All directors are reimbursed for reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred in connection with their attendance at Board and
committee meetings.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 05-cr–88-PB

Chanrathana Khem

O R D E R

The defendant has moved to continue the July 6, 2005 trial

in the above case. Defendant cites the need for additional time

to complete discovery and prepare a defense. The government does

not object to a continuance of the trial date.

Accordingly, in order to allow the parties additional time

to complete discovery and properly prepare for trial, the court

will continue the trial from July 6, 2005 to October 4, 2005. 

In agreeing to continue the trial, the court finds pursuant to 18

U.S.C.A. § 3161(h)(8)(A) that for the above-stated reasons, the

ends of justice served in granting a continuance outweigh the

best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

Case 1:05-cr-00088-PB Document 15 Filed 06/24/05 Page 1 of 2
2

The June 27, 2005 final pretrial conference is continued

until September 28, 2005 at 4:00 p.m.

SO ORDERED.

 /s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

June 24, 2005

cc: James W. Dennehy, Esq.

Terry Ollila, AUSA

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:05-cr-00088-PB Document 15 Filed 06/24/05 Page 2 of 2