alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Order filed July 9, 2015 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-15-00392-CV

____________

JAY COHEN, Appellant

V.

TOURS PARTNERS, LTD. AND PRESTON REALTY CORPORATION, 

Appellees

On Appeal from the 269th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2013-41051

O R D E R

The notice of appeal in this case was filed April 28, 2015. On May 13, 2015, 

the court notified all parties that the filing fee of $195.00 was past due and the 

appeal may be dismissed if it was not paid by May 26, 2015. To date, the filing fee 

has not been paid. No evidence that appellant has established indigence has been 

filed. See Tex. R. App. P. 20.1. Therefore, the court issues the following order. 
2

Appellant is ordered to pay the filing fee in the amount of $195.00 to the 

clerk of this court on or before July 20, 2015. See Tex. R. App. P. 5. If appellant 

fails to timely pay the filing fee in accordance with this order, the appeal will be 

dismissed.

PER CURIAM
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-3135

_____________________________

LEROY A. PARSONS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Bay County.

Brantley S. Clark, Jr., Judge.

May 31, 2019

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROWE, JAY, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Leroy A. Parsons, pro se, Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Heather Flanagan Ross, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
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 Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [TA-W-65,653]

                    By letter dated June 2, 2009, a petitioner requested administrative reconsideration regarding Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA) applicable to workers of the subject firm. The negative determination was signed on May 14, 2009. The notice of negative determination for ATAA will soon be published in the                     **Federal Register**                    .                

The workers of Munson Machinery Company, Utica, New York were certified eligible to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) on May 14, 2009.

The initial ATAA investigation determined that workers of the workers' firm possess skills that are easily transferrable.

In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner provided additional information regarding the skills of the workers and that the skills of the workers employed at the subject firm are not easily transferrable to other businesses within the local commuting area. The company official provided sufficient information confirming this statement.

Additional investigation has determined that the workers possess skills that are not easily transferable and that the conditions within the industry are adverse. A significant number or proportion of the worker group is age fifty years or over.

## Conclusion

After careful review of the additional facts obtained on reconsideration, I conclude that the requirements of Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, have been met for workers at the subject firm.

In accordance with the provisions of the Act, I make the following revised determination:

All workers of Munson Machinery Company, Utica, New York, who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after March 11, 2008 through May 14, 2011, are eligible to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance under Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974.

Signed in Washington, DC this 16th day of June, 2009.

Elliott S. Kushner,

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. E9-14762 Filed 6-23-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v James Reed, Appellant.

[976 NYS2d 894]

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Camacho, J.), imposed February 17, 2011, upon his plea of guilty, on the ground that the sentence was excessive.

Ordered that the sentence is affirmed.

The sentence imposed was not excessive *(see People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Mastro, J.E, Rivera, Roman and Sgroi, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                          5
<CIK>                              0000833526     
<NAME>                             GEODYNE ENERGY INCOME LTD PARTNERSHIP II-D
                                    
<S>                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                     JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                       SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                 3,311,975
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                            300,667
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                       3,612,642
<PP&E>                                16,931,785
<DEPRECIATION>                        14,030,490
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         7,058,282
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                    184,421
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                             6,634,778
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>           7,058,282
<SALES>                                1,885,766
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                       5,485,178
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                          1,473,654
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                        4,011,524
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                    4,011,524
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                           4,011,524
<EPS-PRIMARY>                              12.07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        
 

</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eric Daniel MORALES, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-20085

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 21, 2006.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Kathlyn Giannaula Snyder, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Molly E. Odom, Federal Public *471Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before STEWART, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Eric Daniel Morales, former federal prisoner # 10876-179, appeals from the 11-month sentence imposed upon revocation of his supervised release.

This court must examine the basis of its jurisdiction on its own motion if necessary. *Mosley v. Cozby,*813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir.1987). Article III, § 2, of the Constitution limits federal court jurisdiction to actual cases and controversies. *See Spencer v. Kemna,*523 U.S. 1, 7, 118 S.Ct. 978, 140 L.Ed.2d 43 (1998). The case-or-controversy requirement demands that “some concrete and continuing injury other than the now-ended incarceration or parole — some ‘collateral consequence’ of the conviction — must exist if the suit is to be maintained.” *Id.*

Morales has served the sentence that was imposed upon the revocation of his supervised release. The order revoking Morales’s term of supervised release imposed no further term of supervised release. Accordingly, there is no case or controversy for this court to address, and the appeal is dismissed as moot.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

*

 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.
Notice of NIGC Listening Session

April 4, 2018

Dear Tribal Leader:

On behalf of the National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC or Commission), we invite you to 

participate in an in-person and telephonic listening session. The listening session will be held on 

April 17th, 2018 from 2:00 pm to 5:00 pm PST in the Las Vegas Convention Center at 3150 

Paradise Road, Las Vegas. 

Listening sessions help the NIGC to better coordinate the NIGC’s work with you and honor our 

nation to nation relationships. In this session we would like to further discuss and update you on 

ongoing work at the NIGC related to topics that the current Commission and past Commissions 

have consulted with you about. We would also like to discuss with you any additional topics that 

are important to you and your community so that the NIGC can plan for the future and keep you 

informed. Below is a list of proposed discussion topics:

1. Management Contract Process

2. Audit requirements

3. St. Paul Region split

4. Management & Sole Proprietary Interest

5. Technical amendments adding Key controls back into 25 C.F.R. 543

6. Additional Topics Raised by Tribal Leaders

The NIGC is committed to honoring the sovereignty of tribes and government-to-government 

relationships. We hope all tribal leaders are available to participate in the listening session on 

NIGC 1849 C Street NW, Mail Stop #1621 Washington, DC 20240 Tel: 202.632.7003 Fax: 202.632.7066

REGIONAL OFFICES Portland, OR; Sacramento, CA; Phoenix, AZ; St. Paul, MN; Tulsa, OK; Oklahoma City, OK

WWW.NIGC.GOV
April 17th, 2018 from 2:00 pm to 5:00 pm PST. Please use the following dial-in information to 

participate:

Telephone Conference: 888-469-1172

Pass code: 9590880

For planning purposes, and to ensure we have adequate lines available for all who wish to attend, 

please RSVP to Rita Homa, Executive Administrator, at (202) 418-9807 or at 

rita_homa@nigc.gov . 

Thank you for your interest and participation.

Sincerely,

Jonodev O. Chaudhuri Kathryn Isom-Clause E. Sequoyah Simermeyer

Chairman Vice Chair Associate Commissioner
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David Lamont BEEKS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-6523.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 15, 2006.

Decided: June 21, 2006.

David Lamont Beeks, Appellant Pro Se. Regan Alexandra Pendleton, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

David Lamont Beeks seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as successive his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district, court is likewise debatable. *Miller-El v. Cockrell,*587 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Beeks has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Gabriel RUIZ-CHAVEZ, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 05-50239.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 12, 2006.*

Decided June 19, 2006.

Maura Quinn, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Michelle A. Villasenor-Grant, Esq., Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: KLEINFELD, PAEZ, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

*732MEMORANDUM **

Gabriel Ruiz-Chavez appeals from the 21-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for being a deported alien found in the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

Ruiz-Chavez contends that the two-year supervised release portion of his sentence imposed by the district court is in error because the fact of his prior conviction needed to be charged in the indictment and proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. This contention is foreclosed by *United States v. Esparza-Gonzalez,*422 F.3d 897, 907 (9th Cir.2005), and *United States v. Wetland,*420 F.3d 1062, 1080 n. 16 (9th Cir.2005).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### In the Matter of DeAndre Williams, Petitioner, v Barbara G. Zambelli, as Justice of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Respondent.

[821 NYS2d 913]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of prohibition to prohibit the respondent Barbara G. Zambelli, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Kings County, from deciding certain motions pursuant to CPL article 440, and application for poor person relief. Motion by the respondent to dismiss the proceeding.

Ordered that the motion is denied; and it is further,

Ordered that the application for poor person relief is granted to the extent that the filing fee imposed by CPLR 8022 (b) is waived, and the application is otherwise denied; and it is further,

Adjudged that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

“Because of its extraordinary nature, prohibition is available only where there is a clear legal right, and then only when a court—in cases where judicial authority is challenged—acts or threatens to act either without jurisdiction or in excess of its authorized powers” *(Matter of Holtzman v Goldman,*71 NY2d 564, 569 [1988]; *see Matter of Rush v Mordue,*68 NY2d 348, 352 [1986]). The petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought. Adams, J.P., Skelos, Fisher and Covello, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted
from Annual Report to Stockholders and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>1,000

<S>                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          10,161
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   24,137
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     17,913
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                97,486
<PP&E>                                          67,678
<DEPRECIATION>                                  53,199
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 112,055
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           21,304
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                         5,209
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      84,133
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   112,055
<SALES>                                        115,371
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               115,371
<CGS>                                           86,886
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  115,945
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (918)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (574)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,118
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (1,692)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (1,692)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.33)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.34)


</TABLE>
# Email Updates

Sign up to receive regular email updates about mental health topics, including NIMH news, upcoming events, mental disorders, funding opportunities, and research. Enter your email address below and check the topics that interest you. You can add or delete topics at any time by updating your subscriber preferences **.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 24 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
H. Res. 24

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                       January 4, 2019.
    Resolved, That the following named Members be, and are hereby, elected to 
the following standing committees of the House of Representatives:
    Committee on Agriculture: Mr. Peterson, Chair.
    Committee on Armed Services: Mr. Smith of Washington, Chair.
    Committee on Education and Labor: Mr. Scott of Virginia, Chair.
    Committee on Foreign Affairs: Mr. Engel, Chair.
    Committee on Homeland Security: Mr. Thompson of Mississippi, Chair.
    Committee on the Judiciary: Mr. Nadler, Chair.
    Committee on Natural Resources: Mr. Grijalva, Chair.
    Committee on Oversight and Reform: Mr. Cummings, Chair.
    Committee on Rules: Mr. Hastings, Mrs. Torres of California, Mr. Raskin, Ms. 
Scanlon, Mr. Morelle, and Ms. Shalala.
    Committee on Science, Space, and Technology: Ms. Johnson of Texas, Chair.
    Committee on Small Business: Ms. Velazquez, Chair.
    Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure: Mr. DeFazio, Chair.
    Committee on Veterans' Affairs: Mr. Takano, Chair.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3465 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

15 South Main Street in Sharon, Massachusetts, as the ‘‘Michael C. 

Rothberg Post Office’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 9, 2010 

Mr. KERRY (for himself and Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 

Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 15 South Main Street in Sharon, Massachusetts, as the ‘‘Michael C. Rothberg Post Office’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. MICHAEL C. ROTHBERG POST OFFICE. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 15 South Main Street in Sharon, 

6 Massachusetts, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Mi7 chael C. Rothberg Post Office’’. 

8 (b) REFERENCES.—Any references in a law, map, 

9 regulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3465 IS

1 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

2 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Michael C. Rothberg 

3 Post Office’’. 

Æ 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with BILLS
Amendment to Investment Agreement



 Exhibit 10.2 
 AMENDMENT 
 TO 

INVESTMENT AGREEMENT 
 THIS AMENDMENT TO INVESTMENT AGREEMENT, dated as of July 15, 2013 (this “Amendment”), is made by and among RTI Biologics, Inc., a Delaware corporation
(“RTI”), and WSHP Biologics Holdings, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“WSHP”). 
 W I T N E S S E T H: 

WHEREAS, that certain Investment Agreement, dated as of June 12, 2013 (the “Investment Agreement”),
was executed and delivered by RTI and WSHP; and 
 WHEREAS, RTI and WSHP desire to modify the Investment Agreement in
accordance with the terms and conditions of this Amendment. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the
respective covenants, and agreements set forth in this Amendment and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows: 

1. All capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings assigned to such terms in the Investment
Agreement. 
 2. Each of Exhibit B (Series A Certificate of Designation) and Exhibit C (Investor Rights
Agreement) originally attached to the Investment Agreement is hereby replaced and superseded in its entirety with the revised Exhibit B and Exhibit C attached to this Amendment, and shall be deemed to be the applicable for all
purposes under the Investment Agreement. 
 3. The Investment Agreement is hereby confirmed and the terms and provisions
thereof, unless expressly modified herein, are in full force and effect. 
 4. This Amendment shall be binding upon and inure to
the benefit of the parties and their respective successors and permitted assigns. This Amendment shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the Laws of the State of Delaware applicable to agreements entered into and to be performed solely
within such state without giving effect to the principles of conflict of Laws thereof. 
 5. This Amendment may be executed in
several counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original and all of which shall constitute one and the same instrument This Amendment may be executed and delivered by facsimile transmission or PDF, and any counterpart so delivered shall be
treated as an original for all purposes binding and enforceable against the person so executing and delivering. 
 [Signature
Page Follows] 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be duly executed
as of the day and year first above written. 
  

			
	RTI BIOLOGICS, INC.
		
	By:	 	    /s/ Robert P. Jordheim
		 	 Name: Robert P. Jordheim

Title: EVP & CFO



  

			
	WSHP BIOLOGICS HOLDINGS, LLC
		
	By:	 	    /s/ Jeffrey Holway
		 	 Name: Jeffrey Holway
 Title:
Authorized Signatory



 [AMENDMENT SIGNATURE PAGE] 







 Exhibit B 
 Series A Certificate of Designation 
 (see Exhibit 3.1 to this
Current Report on Form 8-K) 







 Exhibit C 
 Investor Rights Agreement 
 (see Exhibit 10.3 to this Current
Report on Form 8-K)