alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 22, 2014

No. 04-14-00380-CV

Leola STUART,

Appellant

v.

Estelita JUDSON,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 2, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 391869

Honorable Tina Torres, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant’s brief was due August 11, 2014. Neither the brief nor a motion for extension 

of time was filed. 

We therefore order appellant to file in this court on or before September 2, 2014, her

appellant’s brief and a written response reasonably explaining her failure to timely file the brief. 

If appellant fails to file a brief and the written response by the date ordered, we will dismiss the 

appeal for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a). 

_________________________________

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 22nd day of August, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2

             CONSENT OF DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

    We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements
No. 333-92565 of Nabisco, Inc. on Form S-8 and No. 333-66025 of Nabisco, Inc. on
Form S-3, of our report dated February 2, 2000 on the financial statements and
financial statement schedule as of December 31, 1999 and for the two years in
the period then ended, appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Nabisco,
Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2000.

                                          /s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Parsippany, New Jersey
March 16, 2001
Exhibit 4.16


 


CERTIFICATE OF TRUST

OF

ST. PAUL TRAVELERS CAPITAL TRUST IV


 


THIS
Certificate of Trust of St. Paul Travelers Capital Trust IV (the “Trust”) is
being duly executed as of June 28, 2004 and filed on behalf of the Trust
by each of the undersigned, as trustees, to form a statutory trust under the
Delaware Statutory Trust Act (12 Del. C. § 3801 et  seq.)
(the “Act”).


 


1.                                       Name.  The name of the statutory trust formed hereby
is St. Paul Travelers Capital Trust IV.


 


2.                                       Delaware
Trustee.  The name and business
address of the trustee of the Trust in the State of Delaware are:


 


Chase Manhattan Bank USA, National Association


c/o JP Morgan Chase


500 Stanton Christiana Road, OPS4 / 3rd Floor


Newark, DE  19713


Attn:  Institutional Trust
Services.


 


3.                                       Effective
Date.  This Certificate of Trust
shall be effective upon filing.


 


IN WITNESS
WHEREOF, each of the undersigned, as trustees of the Trust, have executed this
Certificate of Trust in accordance with Section 3811(a)(1) of the
Act.


 


	
   

  	
  CHASE
  MANHATTAN BANK USA, NATIONAL

  ASSOCIATION, as Delaware Trustee

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/ John J.
  Cashin

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Name: John
  J. Cashin

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Title: Vice
  President

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/ Bruce A.
  Backberg

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Name: Bruce A. Backberg, as Administrative

  Trustee
Exhibit 99.2

 

Annual CEO Certification

(Section 303A.12(a))

 

As the Chief Executive Officer of Mestek, Inc.,

 

and as required by Section 303A.12(a) of the New York Stock Exchange Listed Company Manual, I hereby certify that as of the date hereof I am not aware of any violation by the Company of NYSE’s Corporate Governance listing standards, other than has been notified to the Exchange pursuant to Section 303A.12(b) and disclosed as an attachment hereto.

 
| Date:  April 3, 2006 | By:         | /s/ John E. Reed                                     |
|----------------------|-------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                 | Print Name: | John E. Reed                                                                                                                                                                                                                             |  
 

Title:  Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

 
 

 

 

 

  |
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

GULF COAST ASPHALT CO., L.L.C., : 

: 

Plaintiff, : 

: 

vs. : 

: 

CHEVRON U.S.A., INC., : 

: CIVIL ACTION 09-0187-CG-M 

Defendant, and : 

Third-Party Plaintiff, : 

: 

vs. : 

: 

Trifinery, Inc., : 

: 

Third-Party Defendant. : 

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of all pleadings in this file, and there having been no

objections filed, the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1)(B) is adopted as the opinion of this court.

It is ORDERED that Chevron U.S.A., Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss Counterclaims by

Trifinery, Inc. (Doc. 57) is hereby GRANTED.

DONE and ORDERED this 6th day of April, 2010.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-00187-CG-M Document 68 Filed 04/06/10 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

 SOUTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : 

 : 

vs. : CRIMINAL ACTION 08-00135-KD-M 

 : 

WILMER ALONZO STANLEY HINDS : 

 ORDER 

After due and proper consideration of all portions of this file deemed relevant to Defendant 

Hinds’ Notice of Intent to File Post-Conviction Appeal, Request Appointment of Appellate Counsel, 

and to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, with accompanying Application to Proceed Without Prepayment 

of Fees and Affidavit (Doc. 65 and Ex. 1), the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge 

made pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(3) and dated November 10, 2010, is hereby ADOPTED as the 

opinion of this Court. 

 Since the Report and Recommendation was made after a referral pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(3), Defendant does not have the opportunity to file an objection. Minetti v. Port of Seattle, 

152 F.3d 1113, 1114 (9th Cir. 1998) (“Section 636(b)(3) does not provide a party with ten days to 

file written objections with the district court.”). 

 Therefore, it is ORDERED that Defendant Hinds’ Application to Proceed Without 

Prepayment of Fees is DENIED. Additionally, it is ORDERED that Defendant Hinds’ request to 

appoint counsel to represent him on appeal, as contained in the Motion, is also DENIED. Moreover, 

it is CERTIFIED that this appeal is not taken in good faith as Defendant Hinds has failed to show 

that he has a non-frivolous issue to be presented to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. 

DONE and ORDERED this the 16th day of November 2010. 

 

/s/ Kristi K. DuBose 

KRISTI K. DuBOSE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:08-cr-00135-KD-M Document 71 Filed 11/16/10 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS               
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         18,474
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  227,287
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    320,039
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               609,228
<PP&E>                                         708,711
<DEPRECIATION>                                 76,741
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1,429,235
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          3,953,540
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       280
<OTHER-SE>                                     0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1,429,235
<SALES>                                        744,177
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               744,177
<CGS>                                          329,697
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  329,697
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               802,617
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (83,035)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (439,189)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (439,189)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (439,189)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (.17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.17)
        


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                      5

<S>                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                   SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                          231,559
<SECURITIES>                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                    67,500
<ALLOWANCES>                          0
<INVENTORY>                           0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                      0
<PP&E>                                0
<DEPRECIATION>                        0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                1,096,191
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                 0
<BONDS>                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                 0
<PREFERRED>                           0
<COMMON>                              0
<OTHER-SE>                            0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  1,096,191
<SALES>                               0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                118,199
<CGS>                                 0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   176,157
<OTHER-EXPENSES>               (309,376)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                    0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 251,418
<INCOME-TAX>                          0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                   0
<DISCONTINUED>                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                       0
<CHANGES>                             0
<NET-INCOME>                    251,418
<EPS-BASIC>                      9.36
<EPS-DILUTED>                      9.36


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>




<ARTICLE>                              7
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEUDLE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM STATEMENTS
OF FINANCIAL  POSITION AT MARCH 31, 2000;  STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS THREE MONTHS
ENDED MARCH 31, 2000;  AND STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31,
2000.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                       0000839759
<NAME>                      ALLSTATE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK
<MULTIPLIER>                1,000
<CURRENCY>                  U.S. DOLLARS



<S>                                            <C>

<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                           2,114,350
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                          0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                            0
<EQUITIES>                                     0
<MORTGAGE>                                     195,917
<REAL-ESTATE>                                  0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                 2,345,948
<CASH>                                         1,681
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                             1,852
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                         118,332
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 2,984,449
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                0
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                            0
<POLICY-OTHER>                                 1,179,756
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                          949,715
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       2,500
<OTHER-SE>                                     36,399
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   2,984,449
<PREMIUMS>                                     38,402
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                            40,566
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                             (700)
<OTHER-INCOME>                                 0
<BENEFITS>                                     59,520
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                    2,533
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                           6,500
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                9,715
<INCOME-TAX>                                   3,360
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            6,355
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   6,355
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                 0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                            0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                              0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                             0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                               0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                        0



</TABLE>
11134.

#### Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. *v.*Chastain.

Decided May 5, 1920.

Action for damages; from Fannin superior court — Judge Morris. October 22, 1919.

*Tye, Peeples & Tye, D. W. Blair, William Butt,*for plaintiff in error.

Jenkins, P. J.

There was a verdict and judgment in the court below in favor of a shipper of live stock, for loss and damage alleged to have been occasioned by the negligent handling of the shipments by the defendant railroad company. Error is assigned upon the overruling of the motion for a new trial, based solely upon the general grounds'. While the plaintiff’s evidence is, to our minds, somewhat vague, the verdict has the approval of the trial judge, and we would not feel justified in holding that it is without any evidence to support it. See *Heath*v. *Sandersville R. Co.,*23 *Ga. App.*255 (98 S. E. 93).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Stephens and Smith, JJ., concur.*
COURT OF CHANCERY 

OF THE 

STATE OF DELAWARE

JOSEPH R. SLIGHTS III

VICE CHANCELLOR

417 S. State Street

Dover, Delaware 19901

Telephone: (302) 739-4397

Facsimile: (302) 739-6179

Date Submitted: November 9, 2017

Date Decided: November 20, 2017

C. Scott Reese, Esquire James J. Haley, Jr., Esquire

Cooch and Taylor, P.A. Ferrara & Haley

1000 West Street, 10th Floor 1716 Wawaset Street

Wilmington, DE 19801 Wilmington, DE 19806

Re: Frank Robino III v. Paul Robino

C.A. No. 10871-VCS

Dear Counsel:

To follow is my decision on Defendant, Charles Robino’s Motion to Stay 

Execution on Appeal. (DI 134). When deciding whether a stay is appropriate under 

Court of Chancery Rule 62 and Supreme Court Rule 32(a), the Court must: (1) make 

a preliminary assessment of the likelihood of success on the merits of the appeal; 

(2) assess whether the petitioner will suffer irreparable injury if the stay is not 

granted; (3) assess whether any other interested party will suffer substantial harm if 

the stay is granted; and (4) determine whether the public interest will be harmed if 
Frank Robino III v. Paul Robino

C.A. No. 10871-VCS 

November 20, 2017

Page 2

the stay is granted.1 When assessing the likelihood of success on appeal, the court 

considers whether the appeal raises “a substantial question that is a fair ground for 

litigation and . . . more deliberative investigation.”2 After reviewing Defendant’s 

motion, I cannot conclude that Mr. Robino’s appeal meets this standard.

According to the Defendant, he will appeal the Court’s denial of his motion 

to disqualify the law firm of Cooch & Taylor PA as counsel for the Plaintiff. He 

contends that the Court did not give proper consideration to his motion. While it is 

correct that the Court’s letter, dated October 6, 2017 (DI 126), did not reference 

Defendant, Charles Robino’s initial motion to disqualify (DI 79), that does not mean 

the Court did not consider the merits of the motion when determining that it should 

be denied. Mr. Robino filed his motion to disqualify and then shortly thereafter 

submitted to voluntary mediation with the Plaintiff (knowing that Cooch & Taylor 

was serving and would serve as counsel to the Plaintiff). Mr. Robino was 

represented at the mediation by his own counsel. He agreed to a binding settlement 

 

1 Kirpat, Inc. v. Del. Alcoholic Beverage Control Comm’n, 741 A.2d 356, 357 (Del. 1998).

2

Id. at 358. 
Frank Robino III v. Paul Robino

C.A. No. 10871-VCS 

November 20, 2017

Page 3

at that mediation. That he believed before mediation, or believes now, that Cooch &

Taylor should be disqualified as counsel cannot serve as a basis for Mr. Robino to 

avoid the settlement he reached after voluntarily participating in a mediation, 

without objection, where Cooch & Taylor represented his adversary. This is 

particularly so given that he knew full well all of the circumstances that he believed 

justified disqualification at the time of the meditation. 

The Motion to Stay Execution on Appeal is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 Very truly yours,

/s/ Joseph R. Slights III
Theory and plasmons: going beyond conventional classical electrodynamics

George C. Schatz

Northwestern University

This talk will describe our recent efforts to improve on classical electromagnetic theory in the description 

of metal nanostructure (plasmonic) optical properties, with emphasis on surface enhanced optical 

properties that are relevant to Raman and solar energy. A top-down approach involves the use of nonlocal 

dielectric response in classical electrodynamics. We have recently developed a method for embedding the

hydrodynamic Drude model (a nonlocal dielectric model) into the finite-difference time domain method. 

This allows us to study the optical properties of both very small particles and of small gaps between big 

particles at a higher level than in past work, including for single-electron excitations as well as plasmon 

excitations in the same theory. The bottom-up theory that we use is real time (RT) time dependent density 

functional theory (TDDFT). Here I will describe a series of projects that we have done that enables us to

describe the optical properties of metal clusters with up to 1000 atoms, which makes it possible to 

observe the convergence of electronic structure results to the bulk electrodynamic limit. The direct 

coupling of electronic structure theory with electrodynamics (multiscale calculations) will also be 

examined.
Motion Granted; Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed July 2 ,

2019

.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14- 19 -00428- CV

HILARIO R. HERNANDEZ A/K/A HILARIO RAMOS HERNANDEZ , Appellant

V.
CHRISTINA M. FOOS, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TEMPORARY ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF BELINDA G. HERNANDEZ, DECEASED, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2 & Probate Court

Brazoria County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. PR39396

MEMORANDUM OPINION This is an attempted appeal from an interlocutory order signed in an ancillary probate matter. The order appealed is not a part of the record in the underlying case. There is no final judgment or interlocutory order from which an2

appeal may be taken in this case. See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp. , 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001).
On June 12, 2019, appellant filed a motion to consolidate this appellate cause with his appeal from the ancillary probate matter containing an appealable interlocutory order. Appellees filed a response requesting that we dismiss this cause appellate cause for lack of jurisdiction. Because there is no appealable order or final judgment in this cause, we dismiss this appeal and deny appellant’s motion
to consolidate. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a).

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Wise, Jewell, and Hassan.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Science Foundation

The National Science Board's Audit & Oversight Committee, pursuant to NSF regulations (45 CFR part 614), the National Science Foundation Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1862n-5), and the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b), hereby gives notice in regard to the scheduling of a meeting for the transaction of National Science Board business, as follows:

# DATE AND TIME:

Friday, December 12, 2014.

# SUBJECT MATTER:

Discussion of commissioning a review by an external organization of management and audit considerations pertaining to cooperative agreements.

# STATUS:

Closed.

This meeting will be held by teleconference originating at the National Science Board Office, National Science Foundation, 4201Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22230.

                        Please refer to the National Science Board Web site (                        *www.nsf.gov/​nsb*) for information or schedule updates, or contact: Ann Bushmiller, National Science Foundation, 4201Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22230. Telephone: (703) 292-7000.                    

Ann Bushmiller,

NSB Senior Legal Counsel.

[FR Doc. 2014-28980 Filed 12-8-14; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-P