alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The State, ex rel. Dworken, *v.*Hopple et al., Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, et al.

(No. 24262

Decided November 1, 1933.)

*Mr. Jack B. Dworken*and *Mr. Harry L. Lodish,*for relator.

*Mr. John W.*Brisker, attorney general, *Mr. T. J. Herbert*and *Mr. Donald G. Power,*for respondents.

This cause came on to be heard on the petition of the relator for a writ of prohibition to prevent the Public Utilities Commission from proceeding further upon the application filed by the Ohio Bell Telephone Company, known as Advance Utility Bate Proceeding No. 142, and the investigation of the Ohio Bell Telephone Company instituted by the commission, known as Statewide Cause No. 3307; the answer of the respondents praying for a dismissal of the petition of the relator and the motion by the relator for judgment on the pleadings, and was argued by counsel on said motion.

On consideration whereof, it is hereby ordered and adjudged that the motion of relator for judgment on the pleadings be, and the same hereby is overruled, *574and that judgment be, and tbe same hereby is, rendered for the respondents. The petition does not state a cause of action in prohibition. The Public Utilities Commission is authorized by Sections 614-20, 614-21 and 614-22, General Code, to investigate the rates involved in the two aforesaid proceedings, which were later consolidated and designated as State-wide Rate Case No. 3307. The writ of prohibition does not lie to prevent an anticipated erroneous decision. *State, ex rel. Carmody,*v. *Justice, Judge,*114 Ohio St., 94.

*Judgment for respondents.*

Weygandt, C. J., Allen, Stephenson, Jones, Matthias, Bevis and Zimmerman, JJ., concur.
Prudential Financial, Inc. Non-Employee Director Compensation Summary



 EXHIBIT 10.11 
  
 Prudential Financial, Inc. Non-Employee Director Compensation Summary 
 (As adopted on March 8, 2005, effective April 1, 2005) 
  

	 	•	 	Upon becoming a director, each non-employee director (a “Director”) receives a one-time grant of $100,000 in Prudential Financial stock units that are deferred until
retirement from the Board. 

  

	 	•	 	Each Director receives an annual retainer of $160,000, of which 50% is automatically deferred in units of Prudential Financial stock payable upon retirement under The Prudential
Deferred Compensation Plan for Non-Employee Directors. The remaining 50% may be deferred at the Director’s option. 

  

	 	•	 	All Committee Chairpersons receive an additional $10,000 retainer. 

  

	 	•	 	Audit Committee members receive an annual committee retainer of $15,000. 

  

	 	•	 	Members of the Finance, Investment, Compensation and Corporate Governance and Business Ethics Committees receive an annual committee retainer of $5,000. 

  

	 	•	 	There are no meeting fees, other than fees for attending meetings of the Community Resources Committee (which generally meets on a day separate from Board meetings). Members of this
committee receive $1,250 per meeting.
* 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. 99-30702 Conference Calendar

ANNIE L. THOMPSON, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus KEVIN DUPUIS, Deputy, both individually and in his official capacity, BARTON PROTECTIVE SERVICES, INC.; UNIDENTIFIED PARTIES; ROYAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 97-CV-602-B

-------------------- February 13, 2001 Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Annie L. Thompson has failed to comply with this court’s September 5, 2000, order requiring her to submit within 30 days a computer disk containing a copy of her appellate and reply briefs for the purpose of confirming her certification that the briefs comply with the page/word limitations under Fed. R. App. P. 32 and warning her that failure to comply would result in the imposition of sanctions, including the possibility that herNo. 99-30702 -2- briefs would be stricken. Accordingly, her briefs are STRICKEN. See Fed. R. App. P. 32(a) and 5 TH C IR . R. 32.3. Her appeal is DISMISSED. See Fed. R. App. P. 42 and 5 TH C IR . R. 42.3.3. BRIEFS STRICKEN; APPEAL DISMISSED.
NO. 2014-30215 

IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF 

EVANGELINA LOPEZ GUZMAN 

ZARAGOZA, 

AND

MIGUEL ZARAGOZA FUENTES and CORESPONDENTS, ELSA ESTHER 

CARRILLO ANCHONDO, ROBERT DALE 

BAUCOM, ERNESTO CARRILLO, 

RAOUL GISLER, EVANGELINA 

ZARAGOZA LOPEZ, MYRNA ALICIA 

ZARAGOZA LOPEZ, ABBINGDON 

MARINE, INC., CADOGAN PROPERTIES, 

INC., DADE AVIATION, INC., EZAR 

MANAGEMENT, L.L.C., EZAR 

PROPERTIES, L.P., TEXAS LPG 

STORAGE COMPANY, AND TEXAS 

OVERSEAS GAS CORP. 

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF

HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS

245TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

 

NOTICE OF APPEAL 

TO THE HONORABLE COURT: 

 Subject to his previously filed special appearance, and subject to all jurisdictional 

arguments previously asserted, Respondent, Miguel Zaragoza Fuentes, intends to appeal the trial 

court’s order captioned, “Clarifications and Additional Injunctions for Temporary Orders,” 

signed on September 2, 2015, pursuant to Rules 25.1(d) and 26.1(c) of the Texas Rules of 

Appellate Procedure. This appeal is taken to the First or Fourteenth Court of Appeals in 

Houston, Texas. This is an appeal of a temporary injunction order and is accelerated. 

9/24/2015 10:14:24 AM

Chris Daniel - District Clerk Harris County

Envelope No. 7074833

By: Irma Medina

Filed: 9/24/2015 10:14:24 AM

ACCEPTED

01-15-00818-CV

FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

9/30/2015 2:19:49 PM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK

 FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 9/30/2015 2:19:49 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
2

CHAMBERLAIN, HRDLICKA, WHITE 

WILLIAMS & AUGHTRY 

By: /s/ Kevin D. Jewell

Kevin D. Jewell

Texas Bar No. 00787769

1200 Smith Street, Suite 1400

Houston, Texas 77002

(713) 658-1818 (Tel.)

(713) 658-2553 (Fax)

ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served on this the 

24th day of September, 2015 by electronic service, facsimile and/or certified mail, return receipt 

requested, or hand delivery, to the attorneys and/or parties listed below.

Via electronic service:

Jeanne Caldwell McDowell 

Rebekah H. Birdwell 

The Law Offices of Jeanne Caldwell McDowell

603 Avondale

Houston, Texas 77006

Via electronic service:

Mary Olga Lovett 

Greenberg Traurig, L.L.P.

1000 Louisiana, Suite 1700

Houston, Texas 77002

Via electronic service:

J. Lindsey Short

Adam J. Morris

Short Carter Morris

1177 West Loop South, Suite 700

Houston, Texas 77027-9016

Via electronic service:

Ricardo L. Ramos

440 Louisiana Street, Suite 1450

Houston, Texas 77002

/s/ Kevin D. Jewell

Kevin D. Jewell
Dismiss and Opinion Filed July 2, 2013 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-12-01650-CR 

JORGE RIZO, Appellant 

V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

On Appeal from the 283rd Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. F12-51864-T 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Chief Justice Wright and Justices Myers and Evans 

Appellant has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. Appellant’s counsel has approved the 

motion. The Court GRANTS the motion and ORDERS that the appeal be DISMISSED and 

this decision be certified below for observance. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2(a). 

PER CURIAM 

Do Not Publish 

TEX. R. APP. P. 47 

121650F.U05
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE 12/31/99
RALSTON  PURINA COMPANY BALANCE SHEET AND STATEMENT OF EARNINGS AND IS QUALIFIED
IN  ITS  ENTIRETY  BY  REFERENCE  TO  SUCH  FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                          OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                            DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                      110,400
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                               895,300
<ALLOWANCES>                                 25,100
<INVENTORY>                                 471,900
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           1,519,400
<PP&E>                                     2,202,700
<DEPRECIATION>                             1,133,400
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             5,510,900
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      1,936,600
<BONDS>                                    1,251,200
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                     32,900
<OTHER-SE>                                 1,277,300
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               5,510,900
<SALES>                                    1,414,500
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           1,414,500
<CGS>                                       627,500
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               627,500
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            368,400
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0  <F1>
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           48,200
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             370,400
<INCOME-TAX>                                135,400
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         242,800
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                242,800
<EPS-BASIC>                                  .83
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .82
<FN>
<F1> LOSS  -  PROVISION  INCLUDED  IN  OTHER-EXPENSES  ABOVE


</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Michael D. Rix

v. 05-cv-354-JD

Strafford County Department of Corrections, et al

ORDER ON NONCONFORMING DOCUMENT

IN ACCORDANCE WITH LOCAL RULE 5.2

DOCUMENT/FILER: # 28, Objection/Motion for Hearing, filed by Plaintiff

DATE: 4/26/06

The document above fails to comply with: 

LR 7.1(a)(1) Motions, other than those submitted during trial, shall be considered only

if submitted separately from other filings and only if the word ‘’motion’‘

appears in the title. Treated this document as an objection to the report and

recommendation. Should you wish to file a motion it must be filed

separately.

The document will remain on file. Unless a document curing the defect is filed by 5/8/06, the

original document will be stricken and returned to the filer. Any associated documents will also be returned.

The document curing the defect shall be filed in ECF under “Other Documents” by selecting “Cure on

Nonconforming Document.”

SO ORDERED.

April 27, 2006 /s/James R. Muirhead 

James R. Muirhead .

Unite States Magistrate Judge

cc: Michael Rix, pro se

Corey Belobrow, Esq. 

Kenneth Bartholomew, Esq.

Case 1:05-cv-00354-JD Document 29 Filed 04/27/06 Page 1 of 1
| (logo) WELLS

            FARGO | **Commercial  Mortgage Servicing**  D1050-084, 8th Floor  401 South Tryon St.  Charlotte, NC 28202  1-800-326-1334

 

  |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

**ANNUAL STATEMENT OFCOMPLIANCE**

 

 

Reference is hereby made to that certain Poolingand Servicing Agreement dated as of August 1, 2018, by and among J.P. MORGANCHASE COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE SECURITIES CORP., as Depositor, WELLS FARGO BANK,NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Master Servicer, MIDLAND LOAN SERVICES, A DIVISION OFPNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Special Servicer, WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONALASSOCIATION, as Trustee, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as CertificateAdministrator and PENTALPHA SURVEILLANCE LLC, as Operating Advisor and AssetRepresentations Reviewer with respect to Benchmark 2018-B5 Mortgage TrustCommercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2018-B5 (the"Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise definedshall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

 

Pursuant to Section 11.09 of thisAgreement, I, Leslie Hayton, Managing Director of Commercial Mortgage Servicesdo hereby certify that:

 

1.            A review ofthe activities of the Master Servicer during the period from August 1, 2018through December 31, 2018 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performance perthe Agreement during such period has been made under my supervision, and 

 

2.            To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer hasfulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respectsthroughout the Reporting Period.

 

 

INWITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 28thday of February 2019.

 

 

/s/Leslie Hayton

LeslieHayton

ManagingDirector 

WellsFargo Bank

 

 

| Wells  Fargo Bank, N.A. | (logo)  Together we’ll go far |
|-------------------------|-------------------------------------|
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v *609James E. Collins, Also Known as James Woods, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his brief, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rosato, J.), imposed March 9, 1989, the sentence being an indeterminate term of imprisonment of one to three years and restitution in the principal sum of $6,000 less any insurance payments recovered by the victim, upon his conviction of criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty.

Ordered that the sentence is modified, on the law and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by deleting the provisions thereof concerning restitution; as so modified, the sentence is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, for a hearing and a new determination concerning the proper amount of restitution.

The record submitted to this court contains insufficient information regarding the manner in which the court ascertained the amount of restitution to be paid by the defendant. Accordingly the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court so that a hearing may be held to determine this issue *(see, People v Kade,*153 AD2d 907; *People v Walker,*140 AD2d 655; *see also, People v Andrea,*141 AD2d 740, 743). Thompson, J. P., Brown, Balletta and Miller, JJ., concur.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Harvey Pratt

v. 05-cv-367-SM

New Hampshire Department

of Corrections, et al.

O R D E R

I herewith approve the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge

Muirhead dated June 8, 2006, for the reasons set forth therein, no objection having

been filed. Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief is hereby deemed moot.

SO ORDERED.

July 24, 2006 _________________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

cc: Harvey Pratt, pro se

Andrew Livernois, Esq.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Eastern Electrical Corp.

v. Civil No. 05-cv-303-JD

FERD Construction, Inc., et al.

PROCEDURAL ORDER

The court has been notified by the parties that they have

agreed to proceed with arbitration. Therefore, this case is

administratively closed subject to being reopened at the request

of any party.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

April 20, 2006

cc: Lucy J. Karl, Esquire

Robert V. McKenney, Esquire

Arpiar G. Saunders, Jr., Esquire

Jonathan M. Shirley, Esquire

Case 1:05-cv-00303-JD Document 42 Filed 04/20/06 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                       1,496,452
<SECURITIES>                                   527,670
<RECEIVABLES>                                   87,412
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     85,726
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,272,539
<PP&E>                                       3,728,106
<DEPRECIATION>                                 759,008
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,253,514
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          297,765
<BONDS>                                      2,282,183
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        14,896
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,658,670
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,253,514
<SALES>                                        451,086
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,674,810
<CGS>                                          380,467
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  950,841
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,317,094
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             122,664
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                312,898
<INCOME-TAX>                                   153,500
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            159,398
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   159,398
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.11
        


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 179 (Monday, September 15, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53190-53191]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-21362]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-580-839]


Certain Polyester Staple Fiber From the Republic of Korea: Notice 
of Extension of Time Limit for the Final Results of the 2006-2007 
Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

DATES: Effective Date: September 15, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew McAllister or Brandon 
Farlander, AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone 
(202) 482-1174 and (202) 482-0182, respectively.

Statutory Time Limits

    Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the 
Act''), requires the Department of Commerce (``Department'') to issue 
the preliminary results of an administrative review within 245 days 
after the last day of the anniversary month of an order for which a 
review is requested and the final results within 120 days after the 
date on which the preliminary results are published. If it is not 
practicable to complete the review within the time period, section 
751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the Department to extend these deadlines 
to a maximum of 365 days and 180 days, respectively.

[[Page 53191]]

Background

    On May 30, 2008, the Department published the preliminary results 
of the 2006-2007 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on 
certain polyester staple fiber from the Republic of Korea. See Certain 
Polyester Staple Fiber from Korea: Preliminary Results of the 2006/2007 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 31058 (May 30, 2008). In 
our preliminary results, we stated that we would issue our final 
results for the antidumping duty administrative review no later than 
120 days after the date of publication of the preliminary results 
(i.e., September 27, 2008).

Extension of Time Limits for Final Results

    The Department has determined that completion of the final results 
of this review within the original time period is not practicable due 
to the complex legal and factual issues that have arisen since the 
issuance of our preliminary results of review. Specifically, the 
Department requires additional time to review interested parties' 
comments on information regarding respondent's, Huvis Corporation's, 
affiliated parties. Thus, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of 
the Act, the Department is extending the time period for issuing the 
final results of review by an additional 60 days, until November 26, 
2008.
    We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(3)(A) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: September 8, 2008.
Stephen J. Claeys,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E8-21362 Filed 9-12-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 15

- 11719 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1:10

- cr
- 20879

- FAM

- 1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus WILSON ANTONIO CHAVERRA GONZALEZ,
Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida

________________________ ( August 26, 2016 ) Before WILSON , WILLIAM PRYOR and ROSENBAUM , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Case: 15-11719 Date Filed: 08/26/2016 Page: 1 of 32 Wilson Antonio Chaverra Gon zalez appeals pro se the denial of his motion
to reduce his sentence , 18 U.S.C. § 3583(c)(2) , under Amendment 782 of the Sentencing Guidelines

. Gonzalez argues that the district court erroneously
determined that it lacked the authority to reduce his senten ce because his sentence
had been reduced earlier based on a motion to reduce for substantial assistance
filed by the government, Fed

. R

. Crim . P

. 35. He also argues that the district court
abused its discretion because it failed to weigh the relevant sentencing factors, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) , in denying his motion. We affirm.
We review a denial of a motion to reduce a sentence under section 3582(c)
de novo

. United States v. Webb , 565 F .3d 789, 792 (11th Cir. 2009). A nd we m ay affirm on any groun d supported by the record. United States v. Acuna

- Reyna , 677 F.3d 1282, 1284 (11th Cir. 2012).
A district court may reduce the sentence of a prisoner who was sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has been lowered by the
Sen tencing Commis sion. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). W here an amendment does not
lower a prisoner ’s applicable guideline range, section 3582(c) affords the prisoner
no relief

. Id. ; U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B). Although , as the government concedes, the district court erred when it
determined that it lacked the authority to reduce Gonzalez’s sentence because his
sentence had been reduced earlier under Rule 35 for substantial assistance , s ee

Case: 15-11719 Date Filed: 08/26/2016 Page: 2 of 33 U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(B), (c), we affirm the denial of Gonz alez’s motion
because he is ineligible to have his sentence reduced under section 3582(c)

. Gonzalez was held accountable at sentencing for 911 kilograms of cocaine , which
still resu lts in a base offense level of 38

. Amendment 782 did not lower his guideli ne range. AFFIRMED. Case: 15-11719 Date Filed: 08/26/2016 Page: 3 of 3