alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
HMM Reference NIST Technical Note 2205: Item 14.2 Under Eave Vent (Horizontal)

Photo 1859

Vinyl vent in eaves

Vinyl vent in eaves

Item 14.2 Under Eave Vent (Horizontal) – Keep vents clean and cover with a 1/8th inch fine metal mesh screen and sealed with fire-resistant 

caulking.

Screened vent with fine metal mesh and vent sealed with fire 

resistant caulking

Screened vents with

fine metal mesh and

vent sealed with fire 

resistant caulking

Note: Selected photographs are included to illustrate each HMM hardening item. Additional vulnerabilities or hardening items may be seen in the photographs, but those are highlighted within their specific HMM item.
There is no CAD drawing for 

Item 14.2: Under Eave Vent, Horizontal 

Please see photographs for illustrations.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1




CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the use in this
Registration Statement on Form S-11 of our report dated March 12, 1998 on the
balance sheet of  Automotive Realty Trust of America and to all references to
our Firm included in this Registration Statement.



ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

Dallas, Texas,
April 17, 1998
Exhibit 

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 197-16 Filed: 03/31/22 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:3743
FIRM LITIGATION ROLE REPORTED LODESTAR EXPENSES

Lynch Carpenter Co-Lead Counsel $2,586,757.50 $27,374.44Bird Marella Co-Lead Counsel $2,331,093.50 $256,057.67Fegan Scott Co-Lead Counsel $623,468 $611.10

TOTALS FOR CO-LEADS $5,541,319.00 $284,043.21

IN RE: TIKTOK, INC., CONSUMER PRIVACY LITIGATION

SUMMARY OF TIER 1 (CO-LEAD COUNSEL) LODESTAR AND EXPENSES

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 197-16 Filed: 03/31/22 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:374
FIRM ROLE REPORTED LODES

Freed Kanner London & Millen Executive Committee (2nd Mediation team; settlement signatory) $1,321,6Susman Godfrey Executive Committee (2nd Mediation team; settlement signatory) $265,1Hausfeld LLP Executive Committee $635,3Bottini & Bottini, Inc. Executive Committee $467,8Burns Charest Executive Committee $608,2Clifford Law Offices Liaison Counsel $21,3

TOTALS FOR TIER 2 $3,319,6

IN RE: TIKTOK, INC., CONSUMER PRIVACY LITIGATION

SUMMARY OF TIER 2 (EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE) LODESTAR AND EXPENSES

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 197-16 Filed: 03/31/22 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:374
FIRM LITIGATION ROLE REPORTED LODEST

Glancy Prongay 1st Mediation team $1,657,Phillips Erlewine 1st Mediation team $339,Ahdoot & Wolfson, PC 2nd Mediation team; settlement signatory $169,Consumer Protection Legal, LLC 2nd Mediation team; settlement signatory $286,Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP 2nd Mediation team; settlement signatory $261,Foote, Mielke, Chavez & O’Neil, LLC 2nd Mediation team; settlement signatory $139,Erik H. Langeland P.C. 2nd Mediation team $228,Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel 

L2nd Mediation team $286,

Sauder Schelkopf LLP 2nd Mediation team $163,Baird Law Firm 2nd Mediation team $45,Stephan Zouras, LLP 2nd Mediation team $255,Tostrud Law Group, P.C. 2nd Mediation team $208,Wood Law Firm, LLC 2nd Mediation team $39,Gordon Law Offices LLC 2nd Mediation team $72,

TOTALS FOR TIER 3 $4,154,

IN RE: TIKTOK, INC., CONSUMER PRIVACY LITIGATION

SUMMARY OF TIER 3 (MEDIATION TEAMS) LODESTAR AND EXPENSES

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 197-16 Filed: 03/31/22 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:374
FIRM ROLE REPORTED LODESTAR EXPENSE

Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP Tier 4 $211,130.00 $6DiCello Levitt Tier 4 $126,810.00 $4Bleichmar Fonti Tier 4 $341,962.50 $4,5Chimicles Schwartz Kriner & Dona Tier 4 $49,322.50 $9Girard Sharp LLP Tier 4 $235,485.00 $1,4Onderlaw LLC Tier 4 $10,822.50 $7Baer Law Tier 4 $29,549.00 Lawrence Kamin Tier 4 $40,350.00 $

TOTALS FOR TIER 4 $1,045,431.50 $8,7

IN RE: TIKTOK, INC., CONSUMER PRIVACY LITIGATION

SUMMARY OF TIER 4 (OTHER COUNSEL) LODESTAR AND EXPENSES

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 197-16 Filed: 03/31/22 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:374
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 405

To provide that a person who brings a product liability action in a Federal 

or State court for injuries sustained from a product that is not in 

compliance with a voluntary or mandatory standard issued by the Consumer Product Safety Commission may recover treble damages, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 28, 2003

Mr. ANDREWS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and 

Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, 

in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL

To provide that a person who brings a product liability 

action in a Federal or State court for injuries sustained 

from a product that is not in compliance with a voluntary 

or mandatory standard issued by the Consumer Product 

Safety Commission may recover treble damages, and for 

other purposes.

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

•HR 405 IH 

1 SECTION 1. DAMAGE RECOVERIES. 

2 (a) TREBLE DAMAGES.—Any person who brings a 

3 product liability action in a Federal or State court for in4 juries sustained from the use of a product that is not in 

5 compliance with a voluntary or mandatory standard issued 

6 by the Consumer Product Safety Commission shall recover 

7 treble damages. 

8 (b) NOTICE.—Within 90 days of the date of enact9 ment of this Act, the Consumer Product Safety Commis10 sion shall reissue each voluntary and mandatory standard 

11 the Commission has for a product with a notice notifying 

12 manufacturers of such products of the treble damage pro13 vision of subsection (a).

Æ
Reverse and Remand; Opinion Filed November 21, 2014. 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05
- 12
- 00923
- CR COREY THOMAS FREEMAN , Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee On Appeal from the 401st Judicial District Court Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 401
- 80780
- 2011 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION ON REMAND Before Justices Lang, Myers, and Evans Opinion by Justice Evans Corey Thomas Freeman was convicted of online solicitation of a minor under section 33.021(b) of the Texas Penal Code. On September 10, 2013, we affirmed the trial court’s judgment. See Freeman v. State , No. 05

- 12

- 00923

- CR, 2013 WL 4805698 (Tex. App.

— Dallas Sept. 10, 2013, pet. granted). After we i ssued our opinion and judgment , the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals issued its opinion in Ex P arte Lo holding that section 33.021(b) i s facially unconstitutional. See Ex Parte Lo , 424 S.W.3d 10 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). The court then granted Freeman’s pet ition for review in this case, vacated our judgme nt, and remanded the

cause for reconsideration in light of Lo

. See Freeman v. State , 425 S.W.3d 289 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (per curiam). A law that has been declared facially unconstitutional is void from its inception and cannot provide a basis for any right or relief

. See Ex Parte Chance , 439 S.W.3d 918, 918

– 19– 2

– (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (per curiam) (Cochran, J., concurring). For this reason, a person may always obtain relief from an indictment or convicti on that was based on a penal statute that has been declared unconstitutional. Id . at 919. “No one can be convicted for a non

- existent crime and no prior conviction based upon that unconstitutional statute is valid.” Id

. Freeman was convicted under a st atute that has been declared facially unconstitutional. Because Freeman cannot lawfully be convicted for a crime that does not exist, we reverse the trial court’ s judgment, remand the cause, and direct the trial court to dismiss the indictment.

Do Not Publish T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47 120923RF.U05 /David Evans/ DAVID EVANS JUSTICE– 3

– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
COREY THOMAS FREEMAN, Appellant
No. 05

- 12

- 00923

- CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 401st Judicial District Court, Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 401

- 80780

- 2011. Opinion delivered by Justice Evans. Justices Lang and Myers participating. Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is REVERSED and the cause REMANDED with instructions to enter an order dismissing the indictment.
Judgment entered this 21st day of November, 2014.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                   Exhibit 10.26


                              TERMINATION AGREEMENT


         THIS TERMINATION AGREEMENT dated as of July 2, 1997 is entered into by
and between TCC Industries, Inc., a Texas corporation, formerly named TeleCom
Corporation, (the "Company") and J. Patrick Kaine ("Kaine").

                              W I T N E S S E T H:

        WHEREAS, the Company and Kaine have agreed that the Consulting and
Noncompetition Agreement (the "Consulting Agreement") dated as of August 2,
1995, entered into between them, should be terminated on the terms and
conditions set forth herein.

        NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, the mutual covenants
and agreements herein contained, and other good and valuable consideration, the
receipt and adequacy of which are expressly acknowledged by the parties by their
execution and delivery hereof, the undersigned hereby agree as follows:

1.      The Consulting Agreement is hereby terminated in its entirety, including
        without limitation the obligations of the Company to make payments to
        Kaine as therein provided upon his ceasing to be a member of the Board
        of Directors of the Company and the obligation of Kaine to render
        consulting services and not to compete with the Company upon his ceasing
        to be such a member.

2.      The Company agrees that it will exercise, to the extent that it is
        entitled to do so, its option to elect the "discovery clause" under its
        Officer's and Director's Liability Insurance policy, so as to extend
        coverage for an additional twelve month period at a cost of 75% of the
        annual premium on such policy, such option to be exercised as provided
        in such policy in the event the Company elects not to renew such policy
        or replace such policy with similar coverage, or such policy is
        terminated or not renewed by the insurer.

3.      This Termination Agreement may be executed in counterparts, all of which
        taken together shall constitute one and the same instrument. In making
        proof hereof, it shall not be necessary to produce or account for any
        counterpart other than one signed by the party against which enforcement
        is sought.

        IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto, intending to be legally bound,
have duly executed this Amendment as of the date first above written.

                                                THE COMPANY:
                                                TCC Industries, Inc.

                                                        /s/ ROBERT THOMAJAN
                                                By:
                                                Name: Robert Thomajan
                                                Title:  President

                                                KAINE:
                                                        /s/ J. PATRICK KAINE

                                                J. Patrick Kaine



                                       52
<PAGE>   1


                       USDATA CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES


EXHIBIT 11.1 - COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


                                                          THREE MONTHS ENDED         SIX MONTHS ENDED
                                                               JUNE 30,                   JUNE 30,
                                                       ======================      ======================
(IN THOUSANDS, EXPECT PER SHARE DATA)                      1998       1997           1998        1997
=============================================================================      ======================
<S>                                                    <C>           <C>           <C>           <C>      
Net earnings (loss):
   Continuing operations                               $   (353)     $   (679)     $   (799)     $ (1,557)
   Discontinued operations                                   --            77        (1,719)          118
                                                       ----------------------      ----------------------
      Net loss                                         $   (353)     $   (602)     $ (2,518)     $ (1,439)
                                                       ======================      ======================
Weighted average common shares outstanding               11,211        11,380        11,156        11,233

Common share equivalents                                     --            --            --            --
                                                       ----------------------      ----------------------

Weighted average common shares and common share
equivalents (if dilutive) outstanding                    11,211        11,380        11,156        11,233
                                                       ======================      ======================
Net loss per common share (Basic & Dilutive)
      Continuing operations                            $  (0.03)     $  (0.06)     $  (0.07)     $  (0.14)
      Discontinued operations                                --          0.01         (0.16)         0.01
         Net loss                                      $  (0.03)     $  (0.05)     $  (0.23)     $  (0.13)
                                                       ======================      ======================
</TABLE>




                                       13
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 222 (Tuesday, November 18, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 68710]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-27444]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Parole Commission


Sunshine Act Meeting

TIME AND DATE: 10:30 a.m., Friday, November 21, 2014.

PLACE: U.S. Parole Commission, 90 K Street NE., 3rd Floor, Washington, 
DC

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Determination on seven original jurisdiction 
cases.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Jacqueline Graham, Staff Assistant 
to the Chairman, U.S. Parole Commission, 90 K Street NE., 3rd Floor, 
Washington, DC 20530, (202) 346-7001.

    Dated: November 14, 2014.
Isaac Fulwood,
Chairman, U.S. Parole Commission.
[FR Doc. 2014-27444 Filed 11-14-14; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4410-31-P
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4158 

To provide for the conveyance to the Government of Mexico of a decommissioned National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ship, and for 

other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 2, 2004 

Mr. ORTIZ (for himself, Mr. GONZALEZ, Mr. HINOJOSA, Mr. REYES, Mr. 

RODRIGUEZ, and Mr. GREEN of Texas) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Resources 

A BILL 

To provide for the conveyance to the Government of Mexico 

of a decommissioned National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration ship, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CONVEYANCE OF NOAA VESSEL WHITING. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Commerce shall 

5 convey to the Government of Mexico, without consider6 ation, all right, title, and interest of the United States in 

7 and to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra8 tion vessel WHITING— 
2 

•HR 4158 IH 

1 (1) for use as a hydrographic survey platform 

2 in support of activities of the United States-Mexico 

3 Charting Advisors Committee; and 

4 (2) to enhance coordination and cooperation be5 tween the United States and Mexico regarding hy6 drographic surveying and nautical charting activities 

7 in the border waters of both countries in the Gulf 

8 of Mexico and in the Pacific Ocean. 

9 (b) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.—The Govern10 ment of the United States shall not be responsible or liable 

11 for any remediation, maintenance, or operation of a vessel 

12 conveyed under this section after the date of the delivery 

13 of the vessel to the Government of Mexico. 

14 (c) DEADLINE.—The Secretary shall seek to complete 

15 the conveyance by as soon as practicable after the date 

16 of the enactment of this Act. 

17 (d) DELIVERY OF VESSEL.—The Secretary shall de18 liver the vessel WHITING pursuant to this section at the 

19 vessel’s homeport location of Norfolk, Virginia, at no addi20 tional cost to the United States. 

Æ
#### Williams *v.*The State.

*No.*6732.

November 14, 1928.

Gilbert, J.

The verdict was supported by evidence. None of the grounds of the motion for new trial show error.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*

*284
      *A. H. Gray,*for plaintiff in error.

*George M. Napier, attorney-general, B. T. Castellow, solicitor-general, T. R. Gress, assistant attorney-general,*and *Bond Almand,*contra.
#### PRESBYTERIAN-ORTHOPAEDIC HOSPITAL, Petitioner v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIVISION OF FACILITY SERVICES, CERTIFICATE OF NEED SECTION, Respondent, and MERCY HOSPITAL, INC., Intervenor-Respondent, and STANLY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, INC., IntervenorRespondent

No. 329PA96

(Filed 6 June 1997)

On discretionary review pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 of a unanimous decision of the Court of Appeals, 122 N.C. App. 529, 470 S.E.2d 831 (1996), reversing and remanding in part and affirming in part a final decision of the North Carolina Department of Human Resources, Division of Facility Services, entered 8 June 1994. Heard in the Supreme Court 13 May 1997.

*Parker, Poe, Adams & Bernstein L.L.P., by Renée J. Montgomery and James C. Thornton, for petitioner-appellant and -appellee.*

*Michael F. Easley, Attorney General, by James A. Wellons, Special Deputy Attorney General, for respondent-appellee.*

*Poyner & Spruill, L.L.P., by Mary Beth Johnston, for intervenor-respondent-appellant and -appellee Mercy Hospital.*

*Maupin Taylor Ellis & Adams, P.A., by Robert L. Wilson, Jr., James E. Gates, and Peter D. Holthausen, for intervenorrespondent-appellant and -appellee Stanly Memorial Hospital.*

PER CURIAM.

DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IMPROVIDENTLY ALLOWED.
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4070 

To amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate a segment of the 

Farmington River and Salmon Brook in the State of Connecticut for 

study for potential addition to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers 

System, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 30, 2004 

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut (for herself and Mr. LARSON of Connecticut) 

introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate 

a segment of the Farmington River and Salmon Brook 

in the State of Connecticut for study for potential addition to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, 

and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Lower Farmington 

5 River and Salmon Brook Wild and Scenic River Study Act 

6 of 2004’’. 
2 

•HR 4070 IH 

1 SEC. 2. DESIGNATION OF ADDITIONAL SEGMENT OF FARM2 INGTON RIVER AND SALMON BROOK IN CON3 NECTICUT FOR STUDY FOR POTENTIAL ADDI4 TION TO NATIONAL WILD AND SCENIC RIV5 ERS SYSTEM. 

6 (a) FINDINGS.—The Congress finds the following: 

7 (1) The Farmington River and Salmon Brook 

8 in the State of Connecticut possess important re9 source values, including wildlife, ecological, and sce10 nic values, and historic sites and a cultural past im11 portant to America’s heritage. 

12 (3) There is a longstanding interest among 

13 State and local officials, area residents, and river 

14 and brook users in undertaking a concerted coopera15 tive effort to manage the river and brook in a pro16 ductive and meaningful way. 

17 (b) DESIGNATION.—Section 5(a) of the Wild and 

18 Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1276(a)) is amended by add19 ing at the end the following new paragraph: 

20 ‘‘(ll) LOWER FARMINGTON RIVER AND

21 SALMON BROOK, CONNECTICUT.—The segment of 

22 the Farmington River downstream from the segment 

23 designated as a recreational river by section 

24 3(a)(156) to its confluence with the Connecticut 

25 River, and the segment of the Salmon Brook includ26 ing its mainstem and east and west branches.’’. 
3 

•HR 4070 IH 

1 (c) TIME FOR SUBMISSION.—Not later than three 

2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Sec3 retary of the Interior shall submit to Congress a report 

4 containing the results of the study required by the amend5 ment made by subsection (b). 

6 (d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There 

7 are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be 

8 necessary to carry out this Act. 

Æ
HMM Reference NIST Technical Note 2205: Item 26 Plastic Screen Door

Item 26 Plastic Screen Door – Replace plastic screen doors with metal screens and doors to reduce ignition risk.

Metal frame door with

damaged plastic screen

Metal door

with metal

screen

Metal door

with metal

screen

Note: Selected photographs are included to illustrate each HMM hardening item. Additional vulnerabilities or hardening items may be seen in the photographs, but those are highlighted within their specific HMM item.
There is no CAD drawing for 

Item 26: Plastic Screen Door 

Please see photographs for illustrations.
10621.

#### Parks *v.*The State.

Bloodwoeth, J.

1. “While it is the duty of a judge in the trial of a criminal ease to state the contentions of both the State and the defendant, still, in the absence of a request for more definite instructions, a statement by the court that the grand jury has returned an indictment against the defendant, charging him with the offense of murder, and that to this the defendant has filed a plea of not guilty, which makes the issue for them to try, sufficiently presents the issue.” *Faison*v. *State,*13 *Ga. App.*180 (79 S. E. 39). And see *Wilensky*v. *244
      *State,*15 *Ga. App.*360 (83 S. E. 276). There was no request in this case. Besides, the “contention” of the defendant which he alleges that-the judge failed to charge was based upon declarations that another was the guilty party. The Supreme Court has held that “On the trial of one of two persons jointly indicted, the declarations of the other that he alone committed the offense with which they are charged are not admissible in evidence in favor of the accused on trial.” *Robinson*v. *State,*114 *Ga.*445, 447 (40 S. E. 253), and eit. See also *Daniel*v. *State,*65 *Ga.*199.

Decided October 9, 1919.

Indictment of possession of intoxicating liquor; from Forsyth superior court—Judge Morris. May 10, 1919.

*H. B. Moss,*for plaintiff in error.

*John T. Dorsey, solicitor-general, William Butt,*contra.

2. There is some evidence to support the verdict, the trial judge, who has a broad discretion, has refused a new trial, and so do we.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, G. J., and Lulce, J., concur.*