alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5009

To extend water contracts between the United States and specific irrigation 

districts and the City of Helena in Montana, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 7, 2004

Mr. REHBERG introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Resources 

A BILL

To extend water contracts between the United States and 

specific irrigation districts and the City of Helena in 

Montana, 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 ‘‘Montana Water Con5 tracts Extension Act of 2004’’. 

6 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF WATER CONTRACTS. 

7 (a) AUTHORITY TO EXTEND.—The Secretary of the 

8 Interior may extend each of the water contracts listed in 

9 subsection (b) until the earlier of—
2

•HR 5009 IH 

1 (1) the expiration of the 2-year period begin2 ning on the date on which the contract would expire 

3 but for this section; or 

4 (2) the date on which a new long-term water 

5 contract is executed by the parties to the contract 

6 listed in subsection (b). 

7 (b) EXTENDED CONTRACTS.—The water contracts 

8 referred to in subsection (a) are the following: 

9 (1) Contract Number 14–06–600–2078, as 

10 amended, for purchase of water between the United 

11 States of America and the City of Helena, Montana. 

12 (2) Contract Number 14–06–600–2079, as 

13 amended, between the United States of America and 

14 the Helena Valley Irrigation District for water serv15 ice. 

16 (3) Contract Number 14–06–600–8734, as 

17 amended, between the United States of America and 

18 the Toston Irrigation District for water service. 

19 (4) Contract number 14–06–600–3592, as 

20 amended, between the United States and the Clark 

21 Canyon Water Supply Company, Inc., for water 

22 service and for a supplemental supply. 
3

•HR 5009 IH 

1 (5) Contract number 14–06–600–3593, as 

2 amended, between the United States and the East 

3 Bench Irrigation District for water service.

Æ
Case 3:11-cv-01160-AET -DEA Document 12 Filed 07/01/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 84
Case 3:11-cv-01160-AET -DEA Document 12 Filed 07/01/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 85
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1419
DAVE CORBIN; ESTHER CORBIN, Petitioners - Appellants, versus COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States Tax Court. (Tax Ct. No. 15414-05) Submitted: October 31, 2006 Decided: November 2, 2006 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dave Corbin, Esther Corbin, Appellants Pro se. Kenneth L. Greene, Regina Sherry Moriarty, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Tax Division, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Dave Corbin and Esther Corbin appeal the tax court’s orders dismissing their petition for lack of jurisdiction and denying their motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the tax court. Corbin v. Comm’r, IRS , Tax Ct. No. 15414-05 (U.S. Tax Ct. Nov. 28, 2005; Jan. 23, 2006). 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.

AFFIRMED
CNP_Exhibit 10(mm)_12.31.2012






Exhibit 10(mm)
 
CenterPoint Energy, Inc.
Summary of Named Executive Officer Compensation
 
    The following is a summary of compensation paid to the named executive officers of CenterPoint Energy, Inc. (the “Company”). For additional information regarding the compensation of the named executive officers, please read the definitive proxy statement relating to the Company’s 2013 annual meeting of shareholders to be filed pursuant to Regulation 14A.
 
    Base Salary. The following table sets forth the annual base salary of the Company’s named executive officers effective April 1, 2013:
	
					
	Name and Position
	 
	Base Salary

	 
David M. McClanahan
President and Chief Executive Officer
	 
	$
	1,130,000
	


	 
Gary L. Whitlock
Executive Vice President
and Chief Financial Officer
	 
	$
	571,000
	


	 
Scott E. Rozzell
Executive Vice President, General
Counsel and Corporate Secretary
	 
	$
	530,000
	


	 
Thomas R. Standish
Executive Vice President and Group
President — Corporate and Energy Services
	 
	$
	512,000
	


	 
C. Gregory Harper
Senior Vice President and Group President,
Pipelines and Field Services
	 
	$
	398,000
	





     
    Short Term Incentive Plan. Annual bonuses are paid to the Company’s named executive officers pursuant to the Company’s short term incentive plan, which provides for cash bonuses based on the achievement of certain performance objectives approved in accordance with the terms of the plan at the commencement of the year. Information regarding awards to the Company’s named executive officers under the short term incentive plan is provided in definitive proxy statements relating to the Company’s annual meeting of shareholders.
 
    Long Term Incentive Plan. Under the Company’s long term incentive plan, the Company’s named executive officers may receive grants of (i) stock option awards, (ii) stock appreciation rights, (iii) stock awards, (iv) restricted stock unit awards, (v) cash awards and (vi) performance awards. The current forms of the applicable award agreements pursuant to the Company’s long term incentive plan are included as exhibits hereto.
CLOSED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

CARLO E. CEROME, :

:

Petitioner, : Civil No. 11-1588 (FSH)

:

v. : ORDER

:

:

ERIC HOLDER, et al., :

:

Respondents. :

This matter having been opened to the Court by Paul J.

Fishman, United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey,

attorney for Respondents, (Charles Graybow, Assistant U.S.

Attorney, appearing), and the Court having considered the matter

and determined that Petitioner has been removed from this country

and is no longer in the custody of the Respondents,

IT IS on this 18 day of July, 2011 th

ORDERED that the Petition is hereby DISMISSED as moot.

s/ Faith S. Hochberg 

FAITH S. HOCHBERG

United States District Judge

Case 2:11-cv-01588-FSH Document 9 Filed 07/19/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 38
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS

-- -- -- --

NO. 12-0741

IN THE INTEREST OF S.W., K.H,

K.H., K.H., K.H. AND K.V.,

CHILDREN

§

§

§

§

§

§

Tarrant County,

2nd District.

November 21, 2012

Petitioners' petitions for review, filed herein in the above numbered and styled case,

having been duly considered, are ordered, and hereby are, denied.



I, BLAKE A. HAWTHORNE, Clerk of the Supreme Court of Texas, do hereby certify

that the above and attached is a true and correct copy of the orders of the Supreme Court of

Texas in the case numbered and styled as above, as the same appear of record in the minutes of

said Court under the date shown.

The Court, noting that petitioners have filed an affidavit attesting to the inability to pay

costs herein expended, hereby waives payment of costs.

WITNESS my hand and seal of the Supreme Court of Texas, at the City of Austin, this

the 8th day of April, 2013.

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

By Kathy Sandoval, Deputy Clerk

FILE COPY
The Second Court of Appeals

Fort Worth, Texas

Supreme Court No. 12-0741

Court of Appeals No. 02-11-00200-CV

Please note Rule 18.5 TEX. R. APP. P.: If the Supreme Court declines to

grant review, any unpaid Supreme Court costs must be included in the court

of appeals’ mandate. If any fees remain outstanding in the above case, a fee

list will accompany this receipt.

Certified Copy of order in the above case received in the ________ Court of

Appeals on ________________________.

By_______________________________

Deputy Clerk

FILE COPY
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiffs,

V.

ANDREW COX,

Defendants.

Criminal No.: 11-099 (JLL)

ORDER

Please be advised that oral argument on defendant’s motions as against the Government

[Docket Entry Nos. 88, 90, 92, 95 and 108] and his Motion for Release [Docket Entry No. 78] is

scheduled for Monday, July 16, 2012 at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 5D of the Martin Luther King

Jr., Federal Building, 50 Walnut Street, Newark, New Jersey. All parties are hereby required to

appear.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Linares,

States District Judge

Dated: June 6,2012

Case 2:11-cr-00099-CCC Document 110 Filed 06/06/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 1232
905 A.2d 869

#### SIMON v. CRONECKER.

March 29, 2006.

ORDERED that certification to the Superior Court, Chancery Division, Atlantic County is granted.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7781

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

STERLING LEE DREW, a/k/a Sterile Drew, a/k/a Sterl,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. 

Voorhees, District Judge. (5:06-cr-00022-RLV-CH-9)

Submitted: December 13, 2012 Decided: December 19, 2012

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sterling Lee Drew, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Richard Ascik, Amy 

Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorneys, Asheville, 

North Carolina; Thomas A. O’Malley, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES 

ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Sterling Lee Drew appeals the district court’s order

denying a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) 

(2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible 

error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the 

district court. United States v. Drew, No. 5:06-cr-00022-RLVCH-9 (W.D.N.C. Sept. 26, 2012). We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 

in the materials before this court and argument would not aid 

the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
# UCC-PCE Item Mapping
(Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter

Citation Limited Pursuant to 1st Cir. Loc. R. 32.3)

United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 01-1609

RAUL DE-JESUS,

Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant, Appellee.

APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

[Hon. José Antonio Fusté, U.S. District Judge]

Before

 Boudin, Chief Judge,

Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,

and Lipez, Circuit Judge.

Rafael Colon Flores and Colon Flores Law Firm on brief for

appellant.

Robert J. Triba, Regional Chief Counsel, Social Security

Administration, Camille Velez-Rive, Assistant United States

Attorney, and H.S. Garcia, United States Attorney, on brief for

appellee. 

April 28, 2003
2

Per Curiam. Raul De Jesus appeals from the district court's

determination that the decision of the Commissioner of Social

Security to deny his request for Social Security disability

benefits was supported by substantial evidence. We have reviewed

the record, the issues the parties raised in their briefs, and the

applicable law, and we discern no reversible error.

The district court did not err in its determination that the

Commissioner's disability decision -- that De Jesus was not

disabled under the Social Security Act for the insured period

because he retained the residual functional capacity to perform the

full range of jobs in the medium exertional range -- was supported

by substantial evidence and was the result of the proper

application of the correct legal standards. See Seavey v.

Barnhart, 276 F.3d 1, 9 (1st Cir. 2001). The submitted medical

evidence did not establish that De Jesus was disabled within the

meaning of the Act during the covered period. Specifically, the

Commissioner did not err in the determination that, although De

Jesus was not capable of returning to his past work as a stock

clerk, the Medical-Vocational Grids identified other jobs in the

national economy which De Jesus could perform. Concerning De

Jesus's request that he be allowed to introduce new evidence not

submitted before the ALJ, we note that De Jesus has at no point

even produced the medical records on which he seeks a reevaluation

of his disability claim. There is thus no reason to remand the
3

case for consideration of "evidence" which does not exist in the

record. The district court's judgment is AFFIRMED.
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4929 

To require the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish at least one 

Border Patrol unit for the Virgin Islands of the United States. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 22, 2004 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To require the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish 

at least one Border Patrol unit for the Virgin Islands 

of the United States. 

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

3 SECTION 1. BORDER PATROL UNIT FOR VIRGIN ISLANDS. 

4 Not later than September 30, 2005, the Secretary of 

5 Homeland Security shall establish at least one Border Pa6 trol unit for the Virgin Islands of the United States. 

Æ
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Supreme Court

Norman J. Hayes, Respondent,

v.

State of South Carolina, Petitioner.

Appellate Case No. 2015-002294

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS

Appeal from Lexington County Edward W. Miller, Post-Conviction Relief Judge

Opinion No. 27676 Heard October 20, 2016 – Filed November 9, 2016

CERTIORARI DIMISSED AS IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED

Attorney General Alan McC rory Wilson and Assistant Attorney General Patrick Lo well Schmeckpepe r, both of Columbia, for Petitioner.

Appellate Defender Laura Ru th Baer, of Columbia, for Respondent.PER CURIAM: 

### We granted a writ of certiorari to review the Court of Appeals decision in Hayes v. State , 413 S.C. 553, 777 S.E. 2d 6 (Ct. App. 2015)



### . After careful consideration of the appendices and briefs, the w rit of certiorari is

DISMISSED AS IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED.

PLEICONES, C.J., BEATTY, KI TTREDGE, HEARN and FEW, JJ.,

concur.
#### Eddie H. Valentin, Respondent, v Melcar Garage, Inc., Appellant, et al., Defendants.

[854 NYS2d 131]

Melcar’s motion was properly denied for lack of documentation showing, inter alia, exactly who paid plaintiff and supervised his daily activities, and that such person or entity, if not Melcar itself, is Melcar’s alter ego (see *Hughes v Solovieff Realty Co., L.L.C.,*19 AD3d 142, 143 [2005]). In view of the foregoing, we need not reach Melcar’s argument that plaintiffs injuries are not “grave” within the meaning of the statute and that any common-law claims against it must therefore be dismissed. Concur-Friedman, J.P., Gonzalez, McGuire and Moskowitz, JJ.
PROMISSORY NOTE



PROMISSORY NOTE


$100,000



January 5, 2001



The undersigned, Kevin G. McBride ("Payor"), promises to pay to Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc., a Vermont corporation ("Payee") or order, the principal sum of ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND and no/100 DOLLARS ($100,000) with interest accruing on the unpaid principal balance at a rate equal to the highest Prime Rate as reported during the period this Note is outstanding by the Wall Street Journal. The entire unpaid principal and accrued interest shall be due and payable on the earlier to occur of (i) January 20, 2001 or (ii) the receipt by Payor of the proceeds of an anticipated loan from Merrill Lynch. 



Such payments shall be made at Payee's place of business located at 33 Coffee Lane, Waterbury, VT 05676 or at such other place as the holder hereof may designate in writing, and such payments and any other sum due hereunder shall be made in lawful money of the United States of America.



This Note may be prepaid without penalty.



In the case of default, the Payor agrees to pay the reasonable cost of collection, including reasonable attorneys' fees.



Every maker, guarantor and endorser waives presentment, demand, protest, and notice and agrees that the time of payment may be extended without notice or previous consent.



PAYOR:

/s/ Kevin G. McBride


Kevin G. McBride
**UNITED
      STATES**


**SECURITIES
      AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION**


Washington,
      D.C. 20549






**FORM
      10-QSB/A**






Quarterly
      Report under Section 13 or 15(d) of  the
      Securities Act of 1934






For
      the
      Quarterly Period ended **November 30, 2006**






Commission
      File Number: **333-137481**






**AOB
      BIOTECH, INC.**


(Name
      of
      small business issuer in its charter)






**California**


(State
      of
      Incorporation)





**06-1781911**


(IRS
      Employer ID Number)






**301
      N. Lake Avenue, Ste. 202**


**Pasadena,
      California 91101**


**(626)
      796-3988**


(Address
      and telephone number of principal executive offices)






Check
      whether the issuer (1) filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13
      or
      15 (d) of the Exchange Act during the past 12 months (or for such shorter period
      that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject
      to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. **Yes** **x** **No** ** ̈**




Check
      whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the
      Exchange Act).  **Yes** ** ̈** **No** **x**




There
      were 14,395,036 shares of Common Stock issued and outstanding as of January
      30,
      2007.




Transitional
      Small Business Disclosure Format: **Yes** ** ̈** **No** **x**

















**EXPLANATORY
      NOTE**




Registrant
      hereby amends its quarterly report on Form 10QSB for the period ended November
      30, 2006 solely for the purpose of identifying the registrant as not a shell
      company.











**SIGNATURES**





In
      accordance with the requirements of the Exchange Act, the registrant caused
      this
      report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.









Dated:
                February 1, 2007
            **AOB
                Biotech, Inc.***By:****/s/
                Nelson Liao****Nelson
                Liao**Chief
                Executive Officer*








-
          2
          -
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Ramesh Kapur d/b/a AIC Management v. Steven Engelhardt 

and Engelhardt Law, PLLC

Appellate case number: 01-19-00714-CV

Trial court case number: 2017-56784

Trial court: 207th District Court of Harris County

On December 10, 2019, the Court dismissed this appeal for nonpayment of all 

required fees. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5, 20.1, 42.3(c); see also TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN.

§§ 51.207, 51.941(a), 101.041; Order, Fees Charged in the Supreme Court, in Civil Cases 

in the Courts of Appeals, and Before the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation, Misc. 

Docket No. 15-9158 (Tex. Aug. 28, 2015). Appellant, however, paid the required fees on 

December 10, 2019. Accordingly, we withdraw the Court’s memorandum opinion and 

judgment in the above-referenced appeal issued on December 10, 2019 and reinstate the 

case on the Court’s active docket. See Univ. of Tex. Health Sci. Ctr. v. Gutierrez, 237 

S.W.3d 869, 870 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, pet. denied) (withdrawing opinion 

and judgment sua sponte within Court’s plenary power); see also TEX. R. APP. P. 19.1 

(“Plenary Power of Courts of Appeals”).

The record is due on December 13, 2019. See TEX. R. APP. P. 35.1.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Julie Countiss____________________

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: December 12, 2019
BRAINTREE LABORATORIES, [NC..

Civil Action No.: 11-1341

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

NOVEL LABORATORIES, INC.,

Defendant.

SHERIDAN, U.S.D.J.

WHEREAS Defendant filed three separate motions for summary judgment for noninfringement of U.S. Patent Number 6,946,149 (ECF Nos. 140. 146. 148); and

WHEREAS Plaintiff objected to Defendant’s filing of three separate motions for noninfringement rather than one motion with three issues, and thereby far exceed the page requirements

set forth in the Local Civil Rules; and

WHEREAS the Court held a conference call with the parties on October 15, 2012: and

WHEREAS the Court has heard and considered argument from the parties, and for the

reasons stated on the record during the October 15. 2012 conference call;

IT IS on this 15th day of October, 2012:

ORDERED that Defendant’s motions lbr summary judgment fOr non-infringement (ECF

Nos. 140. 146. 148) are DENIED without prejudice: and it is further

ORDERED that Defendant shall file one motion for summary judgment for noninfringement by October 19. 2012: and it is further
y

judgment on non-infringement by November 2. 2012, and Plaintiffs briefmay be upto 60 pages in

length.

PETER G. SHERIDAN. U.S.DJ.

October 15, 2012
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

____________________________________

:

SHARONDA DAVIS, ET AL., :

:

Plaintiffs, : Civil Action No. 11-1155 (KSH)

:

v. :

:

CITY OF PATERSON, ET AL., : ORDER ON INFORMAL

: APPLICATION

Defendants. :

____________________________________:

This matter having come before the Court by way of letter dated January 13, 2012,

regarding certain discovery disputes that the plaintiff seeks to have resolved;

and the Court having entered Orders dated July 28, 2011, October 19, 2011, and

December 15, 2011 that specifically set forth the format in which the parties are required to raise

discovery disputes;1

 The Court set forth a specific format for raising discovery disputes that requires the 1

parties to both confer and work together in good faith to resolve and present discovery disputes. 

The required format assists the Court to efficiently resolve the disputes and ensures that the

necessary information is presented in a concise fashion. The Order requires that

Counsel shall confer in a good faith attempt to informally resolve any and all

discovery disputes before seeking the Court’s intervention. Should such informal

effort fail to resolve the dispute, the matter shall be brought to the Court's

attention via a joint letter that sets forth: (a) the request, (b) the response; (c)

efforts to resolve the dispute; (d) why the complaining party believes the

information is relevant and why the responding party’s response continues to be

deficient; and (e) why the responding party believes the response is sufficient. No

further submissions regarding the dispute may be submitted without leave of

Court. If necessary, the Court will thereafter schedule a telephone conference to

resolve the dispute.

(Pretr. Sched. Order, July 28, 2011, ECF No. 18; Am. Pretr. Sched. Order, Oct. 19, 2011, ECF

No. 22; 2d Am. Pretr. Sched. Order, Dec. 15, 2011, ECF No. 29.)

Case 2:11-cv-01155-KSH-PS Document 31 Filed 01/17/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 168
and it appearing that the January 13, 2012 letter was not submitted in the format required

for raising discovery disputes;

and for the reasons set forth herein;

IT IS ON THIS 17th day of January, 2012

ORDERED that the request for relief embodied in the plaintiff’s letter dated January 13,

2012 is denied without prejudice; and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the discovery disputes raised in the letter dated January

13, 2012 shall be presented, no later than January 26, 2012 via the joint letter protocol.

s/Patty Shwartz

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:11-cv-01155-KSH-PS Document 31 Filed 01/17/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 169