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

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2633 

To amend title 28, United States Code, to clarify the time limits for appeals 

in civil cases to which United States officers or employees are parties. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 25, 2011 

Mr. COBLE (for himself and Mr. COHEN) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 28, United States Code, to clarify the time 

limits for appeals in civil cases to which United States 

officers or employees are parties. 

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 ‘‘Appeal Time Clarifica5 tion Act of 2011’’. 

6 SEC. 2. TIME FOR APPEALS IN CERTAIN CASES. 

7 Section 2107 of title 28, United States Code, is 

8 amended— 

9 (1) in subsection (a)— 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2633 IH

1 (A) by striking ‘‘order or decree’’ each 

2 place it appears and inserting ‘‘order, or de3 cree’’; 

4 (B) by striking ‘‘suit or proceeding’’ and 

5 inserting ‘‘suit, or proceeding’’; and 

6 (C) by striking ‘‘filed, within thirty’’ and 

7 inserting ‘‘filed within 30’’; and 

8 (2) by amending subsection (b) to read as fol9 lows: 

10 ‘‘(b) In any such action, suit, or proceeding, the time 

11 as to all parties shall be 60 days from such entry if one 

12 of the parties is— 

13 ‘‘(1) the United States; 

14 ‘‘(2) an agency of the United States; 

15 ‘‘(3) an officer or employee of the United States 

16 who is sued in an official capacity; or 

17 ‘‘(4) a current or former officer or employee of 

18 the United States who is sued in an individual ca19 pacity for an act or omission occurring in connection 

20 with duties performed on behalf of the United 

21 States, including any instance in which the United 

22 States represents that person when the judgment, 

23 order, or decree is entered or files the appeal for 

24 that person.’’. 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2633 IH

1 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

2 The amendments made by this Act shall take effect 

3 on December 1, 2011. 

Æ 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
James Norman



# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**

August 26, 2015

N o. 04

- 15

- 00189

- CR , 04

- 15

- 00190

- CR and 04

- 15

- 00191

- CR

The STATE of Texas, Appellant

v.

James Norman EVANS

, Appellee

From the 216th Judicial District Court, Kendall County, Texas Trial Court No. 5623 , 5624, and 5643 Honorable Robert R. Barton, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

On August 14, 2015, appellee filed a letter stating that he mistakenly omitted from his brief cover a request for oral argument. We construe appellee’s letter as a motion to amend appellee’s brief cover to request oral argument. The motion is GRANTED, and appellee’s brief cover is amended to show that appellee requests oral argument.

_________________________________ Karen Angelini, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 26th day of August, 2015

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle Clerk of Court
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                 CERTIFICATION OF JANICE P. ANDERSON PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the quarterly report of Onyx Software Corporation (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2005, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Janice P. Anderson, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)
      of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934: and

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

Date: May 10, 2005

By: /s/ JANICE P. ANDERSON
    --------------------------
     Janice P. Anderson
  Chief Executive Officer and
    Chairman of the Board
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2744 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2744

To pay personnel compensation and benefits for employees of the Federal 
                        Aviation Administration.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             August 1, 2011

  Mr. Hastings of Florida (for himself, Ms. Norton, Ms. Bordallo, Mr. 
Moran, Mr. Gutierrez, Mr. Connolly of Virginia, Mr. Towns, Mr. Lewis of 
 Georgia, and Mr. Van Hollen) introduced the following bill; which was 
referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in 
    addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be 
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration 
  of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee 
                               concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To pay personnel compensation and benefits for employees of the Federal 
                        Aviation Administration.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Federal Aviation Employees 
Protection Act of 2011''.

SEC. 2. EXPENDITURE AUTHORITY FOR PERSONNEL COSTS.

    (a) In General.--Section 9502(d)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 is amended--
            (1) by striking ``before July 23, 2011,'';
            (2) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``before July 23, 
        2011,'' after ``incurred'';
            (3) in subparagraph (B)--
                    (A) by striking ``heretofore or hereafter'' and 
                inserting ``before July 23, 2011,'' after ``incurred''; 
                and
                    (B) by striking ``or'' at the end of clause (iv);
            (4) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``.'' and inserting 
        ``; or''; and
            (5) by adding at the end the following:
                    ``(D) incurred under the Federal Aviation Employees 
                Protection Act of 2011.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall take 
effect on July 23, 2011.

SEC. 3. USE OF TRUST FUND.

    Notwithstanding the expiration of section 48103(8) of title 49, 
United States Code, amounts in the Airport and Airway Trust Fund shall 
be available to pay personnel compensation and benefits for employees 
of the Federal Aviation Administration funded from appropriations or 
authorizations provided on or before July 22, 2011.
                                 <all>
```
#### UNITED STATES of America, v. Francis Joseph FUENTES et al., Defendants.

United States District Court S. D. New York.

March 18, 1958.

As Amended March 24, 1958.

*279Paul W. Williams, U. S. Atty., James R. Lunney, Esq., Asst. U. S. Atty., New York City, for United States.

Theodore Krieger, New York City, for defendant Fuentes.

NOONAN, District Judge.

Pursuant to Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (Title 18 U.S.C.), defendant Fuentes moves to inspect statements made by him which are now in the possession of the government. He asserts that such statements were made by him after his arrest and prior to his arraignment before the United States Commissioner.

He also moves to inspect and analyze the alleged narcotic drugs referred to in the indictment, and to inspect and copy the laboratory report as to those drugs made on behalf of the United States Attorney.

In addition thereto, he seeks a Bill of Particulars.

Turning first to the motion for inspection of the statements, we note that there have been many decisions by federal judges on both sides of the question. In this circuit alone much has been written at the District Court level by both schools of interpretation of that rule, and there appears to be little use in any further extended analysis at that level.

Quite simply, the history of Rule 16 does not appear to bear out the interpretation that such inspection should be permitted at this stage of the proceedings. In addition, it appears to this court that, if the defendant told the truth in his statement (as should be presumed) he should have little difficulty telling the same story to his counsel; if he did not tell the truth in his statement, he ought not now to be given an opportunity to review his inaccuracies and, possibly, to renew them when and if he takes the stand.

Turning next to the motion to inspect and analyze the alleged narcotics (presumably pursuant to Rule 16), the defendant is entitled to such relief under that rule only when the substance was obtained from or belonged to the defendant or was obtained from others by seizure or by process. Such does not appear to be the case here with respect to either the alleged narcotic drug or the chemists’ analysis.

Finally, turning to the motion for a Bill of Particulars, the court makes the following disposition thereof:

(1) granted on consent of the government as to items Nos. A. 3, C. 3, 6 and 10;

(2) granted as to items Nos: A. 2, B. 2, and C. 2;

(3) granted as to items Nos. A. 1, B. 1, C. 1, 9, and 13 except that as to time, an approximate time will suffice;

(4) denied as to items Nos. A. 4, 5, 6 and 7, B. 3, 4 and 5, and C. 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12 and 14.

Accordingly, the defendant’s motions are denied except that the government is directed to furnish the defendant with a Bill of Particulars to the extent indicated in this opinion.

So ordered.
##### 



Exhibit 32.2 Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the SarbanesOxley Act of 2002 In connection with Amendment No. 1 to the Quarterly Report of The Houston Exploration Company
(the Company) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended September 30, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
I, John H. Karnes, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that:  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
the Company. By:
Name:
    
    /s/ John H. Karnes

John H. KarnesTitle:
    
    Senior Vice President and Chief Financial OfficerThe Houston Exploration Company
 November 24, 2004
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.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-60247

ROBERT BROCK, an Individual; MICHELLE BROCK, an Individual,

Petitioners,

versus

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,

Respondent.

Petition for Review of

an Order of the Secretary,

United States Department of Agriculture

Animal Welfare Act Docket No. 04-0015

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

June 24, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-60247

 Despite his diligent efforts to make alternate travel arrangements after experiencing 1

airline and weather delays that were well beyond his control, petitioners’ counsel was unable

to appear for oral argument. We permitted both sides to submit letter briefs after the scheduled argument date, particularly to allow the absent attorney to supplement his other submissions. Especially given the steep standard of review, this is not a close case, and the petitioners were not prejudiced by the inability of their counsel to present oral argument.

2

A judicial officer of the United States Department of Agriculture determined that the petitioners, Robert and Michelle Brock, had violated the Animal

Welfare Act by acting as dealers of animals without being licensed to do so. The

Brocks petition for review.

We have examined all of the submissions, including post-submission letter

briefs that the attorneys were permitted to file. We also have consulted pertin- 1

ent parts of the record and the applicable law. 

The decision of the judicial officer is sound. There is substantial evidence

on all the elements needed for a finding of violation, including, inter alia, that

the Brocks took part in the transfer of the subject animals; that the transfer was

for compensation or profit; and that the Brocks were “dealers.” The claim that

the transactions had no effect on interstate commerce is without merit even if

it was not waived.

Because there is no error of fact or law, the petition for review is DENIED.
Philip J Boon bonus payment letter dated December 1, 2010



 Exhibit 10.14 

 
 Private & Confidential 

 
 Mr P Boon 

[personal address information] 
  

1st December 2010 
  

Dear Phil 
  
 On behalf of the Board of Directors, I am delighted to confirm that the Board have decided to award you a special one off bonus to show their appreciation of what has been accomplished and the loyalty you
have shown to the Company over what has been an extended and testing period in the Company’s history. The Board anticipates your continued loyalty and endeavour over the coming period as we grow the business both geographically and by
acquisition. 
  
 The main elements of this bonus are as follows:-

  

	1.	You will receive a one off bonus payment of $225,000. This will be paid in January 2011 using the relevant exchange rate at the time. 


 

	2.	You are required to use 1/3 of this bonus, after tax, to purchase Innospec stock in the open market. This should be done in the first stock trading window after you
receive this payment. Please make sure you let Nicola Earl in Ellesmere Port have the details of your stock purchase so the necessary filings can be completed. 


 

	3.	You will be required to hold the stock purchased in point 2 above for a minimum of 1 year. 

  

	4.	If you decide to end your employment with Innospec of your own accord, within two years of receiving this bonus, the Company reserves the right to require you to repay
some or all of this bonus payment. Any such repayment will be at the absolute discretion of the Compensation Committee of the Board and you will be notified of their decision in writing. 


 
 Please sign the attached copy of this letter and return to Cathy Hessner in
Ellesmere Port, to confirm your acceptance of the above terms. 
  
 On
behalf of the Board, I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your contribution and loyalty to our company to date and to wish you continued success in the future as we focus on driving the business forward. 

 
 Kind regards 

	
	 /s/    BOB
BEW        


	 Bob Bew

	 Chairman
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### APPEAL 

### O F 

### F LORIDA 

### S ECOND 

### D ISTRICT

SURGENT URANIA DOSS, Appellant, v. CHANDRA DENISE TUCKER AND LINDA TUCKER, Appellees. No. 2D22-3642 December 20, 2023 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Emily A. Peacock, Judge. Surgent Urania Doss, pro se. DeeAnn J. McLemore and Charles W. Hall of Banker Lopez Gassler, P.A., St. Petersburg, for Appellees. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. SLEET, C.J., and BLACK and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur. Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-31250 

Conference Calendar

__________________

DAVID M. NICHOLS,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

WAYNE MCELVEEN;

SHERIFF'S DEP'T

CALCASIEU PARISH,

 Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 93-CV-1107

- - - - - - - - - -

June 27, 1996

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

David M. Nichols, #666133, argues that the district court

erred in denying his "MOTION FOR A PLEA IN ABATEMENT FOR REVIVAL

OF ACTION, VIA - TORT CLAIM AND DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP ACTION

(SUMMARY JUDGMENT)."
No. 95-31250

-2-

We have reviewed the record, the opinion of the district

court, and the brief, and find, substantially for the reasons

relied upon by the district court, that Nichols' appeal has no 

arguable merit. The appeal should be dismissed as frivolous. 

See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5th

Cir. Rule 42.2.

APPEAL DISMISSED.
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">Country-Wide Ins. Co., 	Petitioner-Respondent,<br><br>against<br><br>TC Acupuncture, P.C., a/a/o Jims Calixte, Respondent-Appellant.    <br><br><br>Country-Wide Ins. Co., Petitioner-Respondent, <br><br>against	<br><br>New Century Acupuncture, P.C., a/a/o William Dew, Respondent-Appellant.    <br><br><br>Country-Wide Ins. Co., Petitioner-Respondent, <br><br>against	<br><br>New Century Acupuncture, P.C., a/a/o Debra Bond, Respondent-Appellant.    <br><br><br>Country-Wide Ins. Co., Petitioner-Respondent, <br><br>against	<br><br>New Century Acupuncture, P.C., a/a/o Ernig Mejia, Respondent-Appellant.<br>	<br><br> Country-Wide Ins. Co., Petitioner-Respondent, <br><br>against	<br><br>TC Acupuncture, P.C., a/a/o Johnny Sejour, Respondent-Appellant. <br> <br><br>Country-Wide Ins. Co., Petitioner-Respondent, <br><br>against<br><br>New Century Acupuncture, P.C., a/a/o William Dew, Respondent-Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>In consolidated appeals, respondents appeal from six orders of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Michael L. Katz, J.), each entered December 1, 2015, which denied their respective motions for leave to reargue and to vacate prior judgments which granted petitioner's applications to vacate master arbitration awards.</p><p>Per Curiam.</p><p>Orders (Michael L. Katz, J.), each entered December 1, 2015, insofar as appealable, affirmed, with one bill of $10 costs.</p><p>In prior unappealed judgments, Civil Court granted petitioner's CPLR 7511(b) applications to vacate the underlying no-fault arbitration awards on the ground that the arbitrator failed to disclose facts giving rise to an inference of bias. Respondents-appellants then moved to vacate those judgments on the ground that they were obtained through fraud, misrepresentation or other misconduct (<i>see</i> CPLR 5015[a][3]). Civil Court properly denied the motions, since respondents' contentions that petitioner had knowledge of the alleged conflicts of the arbitrator amount to nothing more than defense arguments "which could have been asserted prior to the entry of judgment" <i>(Abacus Real Estate Fin. Co. v P.A.R. Constr. &amp; Maintenance Corp</i>., 128 AD2d 821 [1987]; <i>see Fargnoli v Parisi</i>, 176 AD2d 396 [1991]).</p><p>We have considered respondents' remaining arguments and find them unavailing.</p><p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.</p><br>I concur I concur I concur<br>Decision Date: May 30, 2018<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_1_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-11-00470-CV

Rochelle ACEVEDO,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 11, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. CV363087

Honorable Jason Pulliam, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Steven C. Hilbig, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Delivered and Filed: August 17, 2011

DISMISSED

On June 3, 2011, Rochelle Acevedo filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s 

judgment signed May 25, 2011. The record was due July 25, 2011, sixty days after the judgment 

was signed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 35.1. On July 19, 2011, the Bexar County Clerk filed a 

notification stating the clerk’s record would not be filed because Acevedo had not paid or made 

arrangements to pay the clerk’s fee to prepare the record and is not entitled to appeal without 

paying the fee. On July 25, 2011, we ordered Acevedo to provide written proof to this court on 
04-11-00470-CV

- 2 -

or before August 4, 2011, that either (1) the clerk’s fee has been paid or arrangements had been 

made to pay the clerk’s fee; or (2) she is entitled to appeal without paying the clerk’s fee. We 

cautioned Acevedo that if she failed to respond appropriately within the time provided, the 

appeal would be dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(b); 42.3(c). 

Acevedo filed a response to our order on August 5, 2011. However, the response does not 

establish either that the clerk’s fee for preparation of the appellate record has been paid or that 

Acevedo is entitled to appeal without paying the clerk’s fee.

We therefore order this appeal dismissed. 

PER CURIAM
exv10w33





Exhibit 10.33







November 15, 2010




Carl
Rossetti

Time Warner Cable Inc.

60 Columbus Circle

New York, New York 10023



Dear Carl:



In accordance with the provisions of Section 1 of the Amended and Restated Employment Termination
Agreement (the “Agreement”) dated as of June 1, 2000, as amended, between you and Time Warner
Entertainment Company, L.P., a subsidiary of Time Warner Cable Inc. (the “Company”), notice is
hereby given to you of the Company’s determination to extend the term of the Agreement for an
additional year with the title of Executive Vice President, and with a minimum base salary of
$515,000 and a bonus target of 100% of your base salary.



Please indicate your acceptance of the foregoing extension of the Agreement by signing the enclosed
copy of this letter and returning it to Tammy A. Burns in Corporate Human Resources, Executive
Compensation, in Charlotte, NC no later than December 20th. Pursuant to Section 1 of the
Agreement, failure to do so will be deemed an election by you to terminate your employment without
cause pursuant to Section 5(a) of the Agreement.




	 	 	 	 	 
	 	Sincerely,



TIME WARNER ENTERTAINMENT COMPANY, L.P.,

a subsidiary of TIME WARNER CABLE INC.

 
	 	By:  	/s/ Tomas Mathews
 	 
	 	 	TOMAS MATHEWS 	 
	 	 	EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT,



HUMAN RESOURCES 	 
	 


AGREED AND ACCEPTED:



Carl Rossetti




	 	 	 

	/s/
Carl Rossetti
 


	 	 





Date: 12/14/2010