alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Maritime Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov","author_name":"Carl Savoy","author_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/author\/csavoy\/","title":"National Shipper Advisory Committee Holding Meeting","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"aaayDB1C7C\"><a href=\"\/national-shipper-advisory-committee-holding-meeting-2\/\">National Shipper Advisory Committee Holding Meeting<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/national-shipper-advisory-committee-holding-meeting-2\/embed\/#?secret=aaayDB1C7C\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“National Shipper Advisory Committee Holding Meeting” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"aaayDB1C7C\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(c,l){\"use strict\";var e=!1,o=!1;if(l.querySelector)if(c.addEventListener)e=!0;if(c.wp=c.wp||{},c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage);else if(c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if(!t);else if(!(t.secret||t.message||t.value));else if(\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret));else{for(var r,s,a,i=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),n=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=0;o<n.length;o++)n[o].style.display=\"none\";for(o=0;o<i.length;o++)if(r=i[o],e.source!==r.contentWindow);else{if(r.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message){if(1e3<(s=parseInt(t.value,10)))s=1e3;else if(~~s<200)s=200;r.height=s}if(\"link\"===t.message)if(s=l.createElement(\"a\"),a=l.createElement(\"a\"),s.href=r.getAttribute(\"src\"),a.href=t.value,a.host===s.host)if(l.activeElement===r)c.top.location.href=t.value}}},e)c.addEventListener(\"message\",c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",t,!1),c.addEventListener(\"load\",t,!1);function t(){if(o);else{o=!0;for(var e,t,r,s=-1!==navigator.appVersion.indexOf(\"MSIE 10\"),a=!!navigator.userAgent.match(\/Trident.*rv:11\\.\/),i=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),n=0;n<i.length;n++){if(!(r=(t=i[n]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\")))r=Math.random().toString(36).substr(2,10),t.src+=\"#?secret=\"+r,t.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",r);if(s||a)(e=t.cloneNode(!0)).removeAttribute(\"security\"),t.parentNode.replaceChild(e,t);t.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:r},\"*\")}}}}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}
N 

RANDY BROWN, 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

Plaintiff, 

FILED 

FEB - 5 2013 

Clerk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy 

Courts for the District of Columbia 

v. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Civil Action No. 

JACQUELINE A. BERREIN, Chairperson, 

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 

Defendant. 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

13 0151 

This matter comes before the Court on review of the plaintiffs application to proceed in 

forma pauperis and prose civil complaint. The Court will grant the application, and dismiss the 

complaint. 

Plaintiff alleges that he sustained a head injury in February 2009 which exacerbated a 

preexisting cognitive disability. Compl. at 1. He attributes these injuries and their effects on his 

judgment and motor speed, as the causes for his failure to file his charge of discrimination within 

the 300-day limitations period. See id. at 2. Plaintiff claims that the Equal Employment 

Opportunity Commission erred by summarily dismissing his charge of discrimination as 

untimely without taking his disability into account. !d. 

"Congress has not authorized, either expressly or impliedly, a cause of action against the 

EEOC for the EEOC's alleged negligence or other malfeasance in processing an employment 

discrimination charge." Smith v. Case/las, 119 F.3d 33, 34 (D.C. Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 

522 U.S. 958 (1997); McCottrell v. Equal Employment Opportunity Comm 'n, 726 F.2d 350, 351 

(7th Cir. 1984) ("It is settled law, in this and other circuits, that Title VII does not provide either 

an express or implied cause of action against the EEOC to challenge its investigation and 

1 

3 
processing of a charge."); Ward v. Equal Employment Opportunity Comm 'n, 719 F.2d 311, 313 

(9th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 953 (1984). Nor is there a cause of action against the 

Chairperson of the EEOC arising from her handling of plaintiffs charge of discrimination. See 

Caraveo v. US. Equal Employment Opportunity Comm 'n, 96 F. App'x 738, 740 (2d Cir. 2004) 

(affirming dismissal of claim against EEOC and its employees sued in their official capacities for 

their alleged failure to adequately investigate charges of disability discrimination); Svenson v. 

Thomas, 607 F. Supp. 1004, 1006 (D.D.C. 1985) (concluding that the EEOC's Chairman was not 

amenable to suit under Title VII or the Age Discrimination in Employment Act because there is 

no cause of action against the EEOC arising from its investigation or processing of a charge). 

The Court will therefore dismiss the instant complaint for its failure to state a claim on which 

relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). An Order accompanies this 

Memorandum Opinion. 

DATE: ~~ ;;_,pf} 

2
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose GONZALEZ-VARGAS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-51619

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

May 23, 2008.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Jason M. Davis, Law Offices of Jason Davis, San Antonio, TX, for Defendants Appellant.

Before WIENER, GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Jose Gonzalez-Vargas (Gonzalez) has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Gonzalez has filed a response wherein he suggests that his trial counsel was ineffective. Because Gonzalez did not raise this claim in the district court, the record is not sufficiently developed to permit consideration of this claim on direct appeal. *See United States v. Cantwell,*470 F.3d 1087, 1091 (5th Cir.2006). Gonzalez also suggests that his appellate counsel has been ineffective for failing to raise certain sentencing arguments on appeal. Gonzalez’s argument is without merit, however, because the claims are barred by the appeal waiver provision of the plea agreement. Counsel is not required to raise meritless arguments on appeal. *See Koch v. Puckett,*907 F.2d 524, 527 (5th Cir.1990). Our independent review of the record, counsel’s brief, and Gonzalez’s response discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 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.
{"id":1514,"date":"2011-01-25T15:05:08","date_gmt":"2011-01-25T19:05:08","guid":{"rendered":"\/?p=1514"},"modified":"2018-08-17T15:06:13","modified_gmt":"2018-08-17T19:06:13","slug":"the-honorable-michael-a-khouris-remarks-before-the-propeller-club-of-the-united-states-in-washington-d-c-on-january-19-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"\/the-honorable-michael-a-khouris-remarks-before-the-propeller-club-of-the-united-states-in-washington-d-c-on-january-19-2011\/","title":{"rendered":"The Honorable Michael A. Khouri’s Remarks before the Propeller Club Of the United States in Washington D.C. on January 19, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"<div>January 25, 2011<\/div>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/assets\/1\/News\/CommissionerKhouri_PropellerClub_011911.pdf\">Click here to download document<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>January 25, 2011 Click here to download document<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":7,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[8],"tags":[],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1514"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/7"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1514"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1514\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1515,"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1514\/revisions\/1515"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1514"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1514"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1514"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
exv10w38



 





Exhibit 10.38




Vermillion, Inc.

6611 Dumbarton Circle

Fremont, CA 94555




August 29, 2007





			
	To:  	 	Quest Diagnostics Incorporated

1290 Wall Street West

Lyndhurst, NJ 07071


Re: Registration Rights





Ladies and Gentlemen:




     Reference is made to the Securities Purchase Agreement dated August 23, 2007 (the “2007
Agreement”) by and among Vermillion, Inc. (formerly known as Ciphergen Biosystems, Inc.) and the
Purchasers, including Quest Diagnostics Incorporated. Reference is also made to the Stock Purchase
Agreement dated July 22, 2005 (the “2005 Agreement”) between Ciphergen Biosystems, Inc. and Quest
Diagnostics Incorporated. Reference is made specifically to the Registration Rights found in
Section 4 of the 2005 Agreement and in Section E of the 2007 Agreement.



     We hereby confirm that the defined term “Registrable Securities” in the 2005 Agreement shall
include for all purposes the Shares issued to Quest Diagnostics Incorporated pursuant to the 2007
Agreement and the shares of common stock of Vermillion, Inc. issuable on the exercise of the
warrant issued to Quest Diagnostics Incorporated pursuant to the 2007 Agreement. Quest Diagnostics
Incorporated hereby waives all rights to register any of its shares pursuant to the Registration
Rights contained in the 2007 Agreement. This waiver will also bind any assignees of Quest
Diagnostics’ shares or warrants.



     If the foregoing properly reflects our agreement, please so indicate by acknowledging and
agreeing below.



[Signature Page Follows]





 









 








	 	 	 	 	 
	 	Very truly yours,





VERMILLION, INC.

 	 
	 	By  	/s/
Gail S. Page 	 
	 	 	Name:  	Gail S. Page 	 
	 	 	Title:  	CEO 	 
	 



Acknowledged And Agreed:




QUEST DIAGNOSTICS, INCORPORATED




	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	By  	/s/
Catherine I. Greany 	 	 
	 	Name: Catherine I. Greany 	 	 	 
	 	Title: VP, M & A and Strategy 	 	 	 
	 




2
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Maritime Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov","author_name":"Catie-Megan Moran","author_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/author\/cmoranfmc-gov\/","title":"Remarks of Commissioner Sola at Port of Galveston","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"sKaCJobyJ5\"><a href=\"\/remarks-of-commissioner-sola-at-port-of-galveston\/\">Remarks of Commissioner Sola at Port of Galveston<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/remarks-of-commissioner-sola-at-port-of-galveston\/embed\/#?secret=sKaCJobyJ5\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Remarks of Commissioner Sola at Port of Galveston” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"sKaCJobyJ5\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(c,l){\"use strict\";var e=!1,o=!1;if(l.querySelector)if(c.addEventListener)e=!0;if(c.wp=c.wp||{},c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage);else if(c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if(!t);else if(!(t.secret||t.message||t.value));else if(\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret));else{for(var r,s,a,i=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),n=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=0;o<n.length;o++)n[o].style.display=\"none\";for(o=0;o<i.length;o++)if(r=i[o],e.source!==r.contentWindow);else{if(r.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message){if(1e3<(s=parseInt(t.value,10)))s=1e3;else if(~~s<200)s=200;r.height=s}if(\"link\"===t.message)if(s=l.createElement(\"a\"),a=l.createElement(\"a\"),s.href=r.getAttribute(\"src\"),a.href=t.value,a.host===s.host)if(l.activeElement===r)c.top.location.href=t.value}}},e)c.addEventListener(\"message\",c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",t,!1),c.addEventListener(\"load\",t,!1);function t(){if(o);else{o=!0;for(var e,t,r,s=-1!==navigator.appVersion.indexOf(\"MSIE 10\"),a=!!navigator.userAgent.match(\/Trident.*rv:11\\.\/),i=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),n=0;n<i.length;n++){if(!(r=(t=i[n]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\")))r=Math.random().toString(36).substr(2,10),t.src+=\"#?secret=\"+r,t.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",r);if(s||a)(e=t.cloneNode(!0)).removeAttribute(\"security\"),t.parentNode.replaceChild(e,t);t.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:r},\"*\")}}}}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}
Document

CENTERPOINT ENERGY 2005 DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN
 (As Amended and Restated Effective January 1, 2009)


Second Amendment
WHEREAS, CenterPoint Energy, Inc., a Texas corporation (the “Company”), maintains the CenterPoint Energy 2005 Deferred Compensation Plan, as amended and restated effective January 1, 2009 (the “Plan”);
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 7.1 of the Plan, the Board of Directors of the Company may amend or terminate the Plan at any time;
WHEREAS, the Company desires to freeze the Plan such that no Compensation for any Participation Year beginning on or after January 1, 2023 shall be deferred under the Plan, including any Bonus that qualifies as “performance-based compensation” under Code Section 409A(a)(4)(B) with a performance period ending on or after December 31, 2022; and
WHEREAS, no Employee or Director has been designated as eligible to participate in the Plan for any such Participation Year or with respect to any such Bonus or made a deferral election with respect to any such Participation Year or any such Bonus;
NOW, THEREFORE, the Company does hereby amend the Plan as follows, effective as of May 1, 2022:
1.Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings set forth in the Plan.
2.The Plan is frozen as of January 1, 2023 (the “Freeze Date”) such that (a) no Employee or Director shall be a Participant for any Participation Year beginning on or after such date and (b) no Compensation for any such Participation Year shall be deferred under the Plan, including any Bonus that qualifies as “performance-based compensation” under Code Section 409A(a)(4)(B) with a performance period ending on or after December 31, 2022.  Interest shall continue to be 
1








credited with respect to Compensation deferred under the Plan prior to the Freeze Date, in accordance with the terms of the Plan.
3.The following shall be added to the end of Section 3.1 of the Plan:
“Notwithstanding the foregoing, no Employee or Director shall be eligible to participate in the Plan with respect to any Participation Year beginning on or after January 1, 2023, including with respect to any Bonus that qualifies as ‘performance-based compensation’ under Code Section 409A(a)(4)(B) with a performance period ending on or after December 31, 2022.”
4.The following shall be added to the end of Section 3.2 of the Plan:
“Notwithstanding the foregoing, no Employee or Director shall be designated as eligible to participate in the Plan for any Participation Year beginning on or after January 1, 2023, including with respect to any Bonus that qualifies as “performance-based compensation” under Code Section 409A(a)(4)(B) with a performance period ending on or after December 31, 2022.”


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, CenterPoint Energy, Inc. has executed these presents as evidenced by the signature of its officer affixed hereto, this 26th day of April, 2022, but effective as set forth above.
						
		CENTERPOINT ENERGY, INC.
By:/s/David J. Lesar    
David J. Lesar
President and Chief Executive Officer



ATTEST:
/s/Vincent A. Mercaldi    
Vincent A. Mercaldi
Assistant Corporate Secretary
2
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Elson PRESSLEY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-4950.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 24, 2008.

Decided: May 2, 2008.

Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. George E.B. Holding, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Banumathi Rangarajan, Assistant United States Attorneys, Office of the United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Elson Pressley pled guilty, without a plea agreement, to possession of a firearm and ammunition by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 922(g)(1), 924 (West 2000 *&*Supp.2007). He received an enhanced sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”), 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(e) (West 2000 & Supp.2007). Pressley timely appealed.

Pressley asserts that the ACCA enhancement violated his Sixth Amendment rights because his prior convictions, upon which the court based the enhancement, were not submitted to a jury, proved beyond a reasonable doubt, or admitted by him. However, as Pressley recognizes, this court rejected the same argument in *United States v. Cheek,*415 F.3d 349, 352-54 (4th Cir.2005); *see also United States v. Thompson,*421 F.3d 278, 283 (4th Cir. 2005). A panel of this court may not overrule a prior published decision of the court. *United States v. Ruhe,*191 F.3d 376, 388 (4th Cir.1999).

Accordingly, we affirm Pressley’s sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials be*272fore the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Maritime Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov","author_name":"Catie-Megan Moran","author_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/author\/cmoranfmc-gov\/","title":"Applicants – January 12, 2018","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"ANCmXFBpek\"><a href=\"\/oti\/applicants-january-12-2018\/\">Applicants – January 12, 2018<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/oti\/applicants-january-12-2018\/embed\/#?secret=ANCmXFBpek\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Applicants – January 12, 2018” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"ANCmXFBpek\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(c,l){\"use strict\";var e=!1,o=!1;if(l.querySelector)if(c.addEventListener)e=!0;if(c.wp=c.wp||{},c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage);else if(c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if(!t);else if(!(t.secret||t.message||t.value));else if(\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret));else{for(var r,s,a,i=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),n=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=0;o<n.length;o++)n[o].style.display=\"none\";for(o=0;o<i.length;o++)if(r=i[o],e.source!==r.contentWindow);else{if(r.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message){if(1e3<(s=parseInt(t.value,10)))s=1e3;else if(~~s<200)s=200;r.height=s}if(\"link\"===t.message)if(s=l.createElement(\"a\"),a=l.createElement(\"a\"),s.href=r.getAttribute(\"src\"),a.href=t.value,a.host===s.host)if(l.activeElement===r)c.top.location.href=t.value}}},e)c.addEventListener(\"message\",c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",t,!1),c.addEventListener(\"load\",t,!1);function t(){if(o);else{o=!0;for(var e,t,r,s=-1!==navigator.appVersion.indexOf(\"MSIE 10\"),a=!!navigator.userAgent.match(\/Trident.*rv:11\\.\/),i=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),n=0;n<i.length;n++){if(!(r=(t=i[n]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\")))r=Math.random().toString(36).substr(2,10),t.src+=\"#?secret=\"+r,t.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",r);if(s||a)(e=t.cloneNode(!0)).removeAttribute(\"security\"),t.parentNode.replaceChild(e,t);t.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:r},\"*\")}}}}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}
Motion Granted and Order filed July 10, 2018.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 18

- 00389

- CV

____________ IN THE INTEREST OF M.R

. , A CHILD

On Appeal from the 314th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2016

- 04856J

ORDER This is an accelerated appeal from a judgment in a parental termination appeal. Appellant C. A. R.’s brief originally was due June 12, 2018

. No brief or motion for extension of time was filed. On June 26, 2018, this court issued an
orde r for appellant’s appointed counsel to file a brief no later than July 6, 2018 . In response, appellant requested an extension of time to file a brief. Appeals in parental termination cases and child protection cases are to be brought to final disposition within 180 days of the date the notice of appeal is filed.
See Tex. R. Jud. Admin. 6.2(a) (effective May 1, 2012). This accelerated schedule requires greater comp liance with briefing deadlines. Accordingly, we grant appellant’s motion and issue the followi ng order.W e order appellant’s appointed counsel
, William Thursland , to file

appellant’s brief no later than July 27, 2018. No further extensions will be granted absent exceptional circumstances. If the brief is not filed by that date, counsel may be requi red to show cause why counsel should not be held in contempt of court. In addition, the court may require appointment of new counsel due to the failure to timely file appellant’s brief.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Donova n and Brown.
{"id":37,"count":23,"description":"","link":"\/category\/meeting-summary\/","name":"Meeting Summary","slug":"meeting-summary","taxonomy":"category","parent":0,"meta":[],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories\/37"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/taxonomies\/category"}],"wp:post_type":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts?categories=37"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}