alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Order entered November 16, 2015

In The



## Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 15

- 01038

- CV

KARLA C. LIANG, Appellant

V.

SHAWANNA EDWARDS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Caus e No. 004

- 00315

- 2014



### O RDER

W e GRANT court reporter Claudia Webb’s November 10, 2015 request to extend time

to file the reporter’s record and ORDER the record be filed no later than November 30, 2015

.

/s/ CRAIG STODDART

JUSTICE
Form of Amendment to Deferred Compensation Agreement for Director's Fees



 EXHIBIT 10.90 
  
 AMENDMENT 
 TO 
 DEFERRED COMPENSATION AGREEMENT FOR DIRECTOR’S FEES 
  
 This Amendment to Deferred Compensation Agreement for Director’s Fees
(the “Amendment”) is entered into as of the __th day of November, 2005 by and between Franklin Resources, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), located at One Franklin Parkway, San Mateo, California 94403-1906, and the
non-employee director of the Company whose name is set forth on the signature page of this Amendment (the “Participant”). 
  
 RECITALS 
  
 WHEREAS, the Company and the Participant previously entered into that certain Deferred Compensation Agreement for Director’s Fees (the
“Agreement”); and 
  
 WHEREAS, the Company and
the Participant desire to amend the Agreement in order to prevent the Participant from inadvertently violating the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“SOX”) and Regulation BTR promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission thereunder
(“Regulation BTR”) by acquiring certain deferred compensation amounts from the Company during a blackout period invoked in accordance with the requirements of SOX and Regulation BTR; 
  
 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises and of the
mutual covenants herein contained, the parties hereto agree as follows: 
  

	 	1.1	During any “blackout period” (as defined in Regulation BTR) in connection with the Franklin Templeton Profit Sharing 401(k) Plan, if the Participant otherwise would
receive such Participant’s directors fees, for services rendered as a director during such blackout period (the “Payment Amount”), in hypothetical shares of the Company’s common stock (“BEN Stock”) during such blackout
period, the Company shall not cause an investment by the Company of the Payment Amount into such hypothetical shares of BEN Stock during such blackout period, but, rather, shall take all steps necessary or appropriate to suspend such investment
during, and until then end of, such blackout period required by Regulation BTR. 

  

	 	1.2	Following the termination of the blackout period required by Regulation BTR, the Company shall cause the Payment Amount to be invested in hypothetical shares of BEN Stock as soon as
practicable thereafter. 

  
 [Signature Page Follows]

  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company and the Participant
have executed this Amendment as of the date first set forth above. 
  

			
	 FRANKLIN RESOURCES, INC., a Delaware corporation

		
	 By:
	 	                                      
                                        
            
	 Name:
	 	                                      
                                        
            
	 Title:
	 	                                      
                                        
            
	
	                                       
                                        
                         

	Non-employee Director
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-18-00542-CV

In re Gary E. Prust

S. P., Appellant

v.

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

FROM THE 27TH DISTRICT COURT OF LAMPASAS COUNTY 

NO. 20698, THE HONORABLE CHERYLL MABRAY, JUDGE PRESIDING

O R D E R T O S H O W C A U S E

PER CURIAM

This is a contempt proceeding ancillary to the appeal of S. P. The subject of this 

proceeding is Gary E. Prust, appellant’s attorney.

Appellant filed her notice of appeal on August 8, 2018, and her brief was due 

September 17, 2018. On September 24, 2018, we ordered counsel to file appellant’s brief no 

later than October 15, 2018. To date, appellant’s brief has not been filed. 

Therefore, it is hereby ordered that Gary E. Prust shall appear in person before 

this Court on Wednesday, November 14, 2018, at 1:30 p.m., in the Third Court of Appeals 

courtroom, located on the first floor of the Price Daniel, Sr. Building, 209 West 14th Street, in 

Austin, Travis County, Texas, to show cause why he should not be held in contempt and have 
2

sanctions imposed for his failure to obey our September 24, 2018 order. This order to show 

cause will be withdrawn and Prust will be relieved of his obligation to appear before this Court 

as ordered above if the Clerk of this Court receives appellant’s brief on or before November 12, 

2018.

It is ordered on October 23, 2018.

Before Justices Puryear, Goodwin, and Bourland
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

***URANIUM RESOURCES,INC.***

405 State Highway 121 Bypass, Building A, Suite 110, Lewisville,TX 75067

972.219.3330 Phone 972.219.3311 Fax

 

May 10, 2010

 

Securities and ExchangeCommission

450 5th Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20549

 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACTOF 2002

 

I, Donald C. Ewigleben,President and Chief Executive Officer of Uranium Resources, Inc. (the “Company”),certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, thatto my knowledge:

 

(1)  The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qof the Company for the period ended March 31, 2010 which thiscertification accompanies fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)  The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

 
| */s/* Donald C. Ewigleben                                       |   |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Donald C. Ewigleben                                             |   |
| President, Chief  Executive Officer and Chief Operating Officer |   |
| May 10, 2010                                               |   |

 

----
Exhibit 32.2



Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss.1350



In connection with the filing with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission of BBJ Environmental Technologies,
Inc.s (the Company) Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2004 (the Report), I, Robert Baker, the Interim Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify in my capacity as an officer of
the Company, that:



(1) the Report fully complies with the
requirements of ss.13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



(2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



The above certification is given as of the date of the Report and is limited to the periods covered by the Report.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this
Certificate on May 20, 2004.



By:

/s/ Robert G. BakerRobert G. Baker,Interim Chief Financial Officer




A signed original or this
written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission of its staff upon request.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-40317

(Summary Calendar)

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

BRYAN AND BRYAN ASPHALT - ROAD OIL

COMPANY, William Todd Bryan,

Chairman of the Board of Directors,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

(USDC No. 6:96-CR-38-1)

- - - - - - - - - -

September 4, 1997

Before WIENER, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Bryan and Bryan Asphalt and Road Oil Company appeals from the

district court’s order of restitution to Panola County, Texas. The

defendant argues that the district court erred by assessing

restitution for loss caused by conduct beyond the specific conduct

that was the basis of the offense of conviction and beyond the
2

parties’ agreement concerning restitution contained in the plea

agreement. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible

error. See United States v. Arnold, 947 F.2d 1236, 1237 (5th Cir.

1991). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.
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.                  

###### Department of the Treasury

###### Internal Revenue Service

# AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Toll-Free Phone Line Project Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.

# DATES:

The meetings will be held Monday, January 12, 2015 through Tuesday, January 13, 2015.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Linda Rivera at 1-888-912-1227 or (202) 317-3337.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Toll-Free Phone Line Project Committee will be held Monday, January 12, 2015, from 1:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. and Tuesday, January 13, 2015, from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Central Time. Notification of intent to participate must be made with Linda Rivera. For more information please contact: Ms. Rivera at 1-888-912-1227 or (202) 317-3337, or write TAP Office, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Room 1509—National Office, Washington, DC 20224, or contact us at the Web site:                     *http://www.improveirs.org.*

The committee will be discussing Toll-free issues and public input is welcomed.

Dated: December 3, 2014.

Otis Simpson,

Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.

[FR Doc. 2014-28849 Filed 12-9-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF SANTA FE PACIFIC PIPELINE PARTNERS, L.P. AS
OF AND FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          37,481
<SECURITIES>                                     4,696
<RECEIVABLES>                                   37,843
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                85,526
<PP&E>                                         739,239
<DEPRECIATION>                                 114,627
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 729,490
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           45,119
<BONDS>                                        355,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     264,041
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   729,490
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               119,449
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   71,115
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              17,851
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 31,867
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             31,867
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    30,839
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.56
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.56
        

</TABLE>
No. 16,581.

#### Smith *v.*Downey et al.

Appellate *Court.*— Jurisdiction.—Action *for Recovery of Specific Personal Property.*— Equitable *Defence.*— The Appellate Court has jurisdiction where an appeal is taken in an action for the recovery of specific personal property, although intermediate between the filing of the complaint and the rendition of the judgment defences of ah equitable nature may be interposed.

From the Marion Superior Court.

*A. C. Harris,*for appellant.

*A. O. Ayres*and *A. Q. Jones,*for appellees.

Miller, J.

— This is a motion to transfer this cause to the Appellate Court for final disposition.

The action was brought to recover the possession of a certificate of stock issued by the *“*Snow Storm Mining and Milling Company of Durango, Colorado.”

The result of the litigation was the recovery by the appellees of the possession of the property in dispute.

The appellant was not, originally, a party to the action, but, upon her own petition,, became a party defendant, and filed answers and a eross-eomplaint against the appellees, seeking to enforce a charge or lien upon the stock in controversy.

The action having been brought “ for the recovery of specific personal property,” the appeal is within the jurisdiction of the Appellate Court, unless it is taken out by the matters interposed by the appellant as a defence to the action.

Appeals in actions for the recovery of specific personal property being given, as a class, to the Appellate Court in broad and comprehensive terms, without the use of words of limitation such as are contained in the clause giving that court jurisdiction in actions “for the recovery of money only,” carries to that court jurisdiction, although, intermediate between the filing of the complaint and the rendition of *84the judgment, defences of an equitable nature may be interposed. *Ex parte Sweeney,*126 Ind. 583.

Filed June 9, 1892.

Ordinarily it is the nature of the action brought, not of the defence interposed, that gives character to a case and determines the class to which it- belongs. When its character is once fixed, other matters go with it as incidents, so as to avoid the splitting of cases. Elliott’s Appellate Procedure, section 48.

The statute does not withhold from the Appellate Court the determination of the rights of parties according to equitable principles, where the same is merely incidental to cases within its jurisdiction. *Parker*v. *Indianapolis Nat’l Bank,*126 Ind. 595; *Baker*v. *Groves,*126 Ind. 593.

We are of the opinion that the jurisdiction of this appeal is in the Appellate Court, and the clerk of this court is, therefore, ordered and directed to transfer this cause to that court for final determination.
From: Nigel Smart <nigel.smart@kuleuven.be>

Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2019 10:32 AM

To: privacyframework <privacyframework@nist.gov>

Cc: Nigel Smart <nigel.smart@kuleuven.be>

Subject: NIST Privacy Comment

Hi Katie

Here are a couple of comments on the NIST Privacy Framework

Page 8: Line 271/272 I would rephrase as...

"For instance, if the organization is trying to achieve privacy

by limiting observation, this may lead to implementing

measures such as distributed data architectures or

cryptographic privacy-enhancing technologies (PET) such as

multi-party computation (MPC) or homomorphic encryption (HE_,

or by using secure enclaves.

An organization may combine both PET and distributed data

architectures and PETs.

The organization may also wish to achieve privacy by ensuring

no data is trackable to specific individuals, for example by using

statistical techniques such as differential privacy."

The above is clearer I think. It also uses the correct PET

acronym that will enable readers to search the literature

easier I think. Also there is no other mention in the doc

for differential privacy, which seems a bit odd in a privacy

document :-)

Page 27: Despite mentioning PET techniques on page 8

there is no mention in the PR.DS-P* things. To combine

with PR.DS-P1 and PR.DS-P2 I would add the following

ones...

PR.DS-PX: Where appropriate data-during-computation

is protected using PETs technologies such as MPC/HE

or secure enclave technologies.

PR.DS-PY: Where appropriate individual data records,

and/or summary data, is protected using differential

privacy techniques
Modify....

PR.DS-P1: Data-at-rest are protected via either appropriate

encryption technolgies or distributed data architectures

Yours

Nigel

--

Nigel Smart

COSIC - KU Leuven
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

 FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

RODNEY MALONE,

Appellant,

v. Case No. 5D22-2831

 LT Case No. 2022-100025-CFDL

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

________________________________/

Opinion filed June 16, 2023

Appeal from the Circuit Court 

for Volusia County,

Dawn D. Nichols, Judge.

O.H. Eaton, Jr., Assistant Regional 

Counsel of Office of Criminal Conflict 

& Civil Regional Counsel, 

Casselberry, for Appellant. 

Rodney Malone, Brooksville, pro se.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Stephen R. 

Putnam, Jr., Assistant Attorney 

General, Daytona Beach, for 

Appellee. 

PER CURIAM.
2

In this Anders1 appeal, we affirm appellant’s judgment and sentence 

with one exception. The trial court erred in assessing the sheriff’s $100.00 

investigative cost under section 938.27(1), Florida Statutes (2021), because 

the State did not request such a cost. See Chivese v. State, 331 So. 3d 264, 

265 (Fla. 5th DCA 2020) (citing Richards v. State, 288 So. 3d 574, 575–76

(Fla. 2020) (requiring specific request by State for award of investigative 

costs). We remand for the trial court to enter an amended judgment 

removing the $100.00 investigative cost. In all other respects, we affirm.

AFFIRMED; REMANDED with directions.

EISNAUGLE, MAKAR and KILBANE, JJ., concur.

1

 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix B – 2013 Belt-Conveyor Scale Sector Summary 

NTEP - B1 

Appendix B 

National Type Evaluation Technical Committee (NTETC) 

Belt-Conveyor Scale (BCS) Sector Meeting Summary 

No meeting took place for 2013. 

INTRODUCTION 

The charge of the BCS Sector is important in providing appropriate type evaluation criteria based on specifications, 

tolerances and technical requirements of NIST Handbook 44, Specifications, Tolerances, and Other Technical 

Requirements for Weighing and Measuring Devices, Sections 1.10. General Code and 2.21. Belt-Conveyor Scale 

Systems. The Sector’s recommendations are presented to the NTEP Committee each January for approval and 

inclusion in NCWM Publication 14, Technical Policy, Checklists and Test Procedures for national type evaluation. 

The Sector is also called upon occasionally for technical expertise in addressing difficult NIST Handbook 44 issues 

on the agenda of the National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM) Specifications and Tolerances (S&T) 

Committee. Sector membership includes industry, NTEP laboratory representatives, technical advisors and the 

NTEP Administrator. Meetings are held annually, or as needed and are open to all NCWM members and other 

registered parties. The BCS Sector did not meet during 2013; therefore, there is no 2013 report. 

Suggested revisions are shown in bold face print by striking out information to be deleted and underlining

information to be added. Requirements that are proposed to be nonretroactive are printed in bold faced italics. 

Note: It is the policy of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to use metric units of measurement in 

all of its publications; however, recommendations received by NCWM technical committees and regional weights and 

measures associations have been printed in this publication as submitted. Therefore, the report may contain references in 

inch-pound units. 

 
NTEP Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix B – 2013 Belt-Conveyor Scale Sector Summary 

NTEP - B2 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALL LEFT BLANK