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

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 24, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

134117 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 134117 

 COA: 273610 

Berrien CC: 2000-406159-FC 

RAMIE LEWIS,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 3, 2007 order of 

the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to 

meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). 

s0917 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

September 24, 2007 

 Clerk
#### Lu Roberts, Respondent, v. Arthur Ellis, Appellant.

In our opinion the papers submitted on the motion do not establish plaintiff’s indigence. The facts alleged in the moving papers are not sufficient to justify preference in the trial of this cause over those of other litigants awaiting trial, and, hence, the granting of the motion was an improvident exercise of discretion. *(O’Callaghan*v. *Brawley,*276 App. Div. 908; *Thomas*v. *Green Bus Lines,*276 App. Div. 922; *Keeler*v. *Greene,*273 App. Div. 976; *Lavicka*v. *National Transp. Co.,*264 App. Div. 785; *Braver*v. *Davis,*277 App. Div. 879.) Carswell, Acting P. J., Adel, Sneed, Wenzel and MaeCrate, JJ., concur.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 Appellant,

v.

NINE HUNDRED EIGHTY-TWO

THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED TEN

DOLLARS AND FOUR BAGS

CONTAINING AN UNDETERMINED

AMOUNT OF US CURRENCY,

 Appellees.

§

§

§

§

§

 §

 § 

 §

No. 08-11-00253-CV

Appeal from the

Criminal District Court No. 1

of El Paso County, Texas 

(TC# 2011-712) 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant filed a notice of interlocutory appeal, stating its intent to appeal from the trial

court’s denial of its plea to the jurisdiction. According to the notice of appeal, Appellant argued

in its plea to the jurisdiction that the court lacked jurisdiction over an unnamed intervenor’s

claim. The notice states that the trial judge orally denied the plea on August 11, 2011, and that

Appellant submitted a proposed order on August 15, 2011. The court coordinator later informed

Appellant that the judge was unwilling to sign the order.

Because it appeared that there is no appealable order, the Clerk of this Court notified the

parties of the Court’s intent to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction unless any party could

show grounds for continuing the appeal. Appellant responded to the notice by submitting a

partial copy of a transcript, reflecting the judge’s oral ruling. Citing Texas Rule of Appellate

Procedure 33.1, Appellant argues that the lack of a signed order does not preclude its ability to
-2-

seek relief from this Court.

Rule 33.1 governs preservation of error; it does not pertain to appellate jurisdiction. See

TEX.R.APP.P. 33.1. Rule 26.1 does pertain to jurisdiction. It provides that a notice of

interlocutory appeal “must be filed within 20 days after the judgment or order is signed.” 

TEX.R.APP.P. 26.1(b)[Emphasis added]. Thus, an appeal may only be perfected from a written

order, not an oral ruling. See In re Nationwide Credit, Inc., No. 13-10-00007-CV, 2010 WL

596809, at *4 (Tex.App.--Corpus Christi Feb. 18, 2010, orig. proceeding)(mem. op.); HubbardJowers v. Starfire Enters., Ltd., No. 02-06-462-CV, 2007 WL 439052, at *1 (Tex.App.--Fort

Worth Feb. 8, 2007, no pet.)(mem. op.); In re Johnston, 79 S.W.3d 195, 197-98 (Tex.App.--

Texarkana 2002, orig. proceeding); see also Farmer v. Ben E. Keith Co., 907 S.W.2d 495, 496

(Tex. 1995)(“The appellate timetable does not commence to run other than by signed, written

order, even when the signing of such an order is purely ministerial.”).

This appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

September 14, 2011

DAVID WELLINGTON CHEW, Chief Justice

Before Chew, C.J., McClure, and Rivera, JJ.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-20461 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ALFRED R. RIOS, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H:97-CR-83-1

- - - - - - - - - - April 19, 1999 Before JONES, SMITH, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Alfred R. Rios appeals his jury-verdict conviction andsentence for knowingly making false statements to a federallyinsured bank, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1014. He argues that the district court abused its discretion by excluding evidence of his military record. The district court’s evidentiary rulings are reviewed for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Marrero , 904 F.2d 251, 259 (5th Cir. 1990). Because such evidence is not relevant to the charge against Rios or to hisNo. 98-20461 -2- defense, the district court was within its discretion to exclude it. See Fed. R. Evid. 405(b). Rios also argues that the district court erred by applying a two-level increase to his sentence for abuse of trust pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3. Section 3B1.3 authorizes a two-level increase if “the defendant abused a position of public or private trust, or used a special skill, in a manner that significantly facilitated the commission or concealment of the offense.” § 3B1.3. The district court’s application of § 3B1.3 “involves a sophisticated factual determination” and is therefore reviewed for clear error. United States v. Brown , 7 F.3d 1155, 1161 (5th Cir. 1993). The district court’s application of § 3B1.3 was supported by the findings of the presentence report (“PSR”), and Rios failed to present any evidence to rebut the PSR’s findings. The district court’s application of § 3B1.3 was not clearly

erroneous. AFFIRMED.
| 1. | Such      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30,      2009, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period      ending September 30, 2009, fairly presents, in all material respects,      the financial condition and results of operations of China Growth      Development, Inc. |
|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:      November 16, 2009                     |
|--------------------------------------------------|
|                                             |
| /s/      Aizhong An                              |
| Aizhong      AnChief Executive      Officer |
### §107. Full and open competition

In this subtitle, the term "full and open competition", when used with respect to a procurement, means that all responsible sources are permitted to submit sealed bids or competitive proposals on the procurement.

(Pub. L. 111–350, §3, Jan. 4, 2011, 124 Stat. 3680.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 107 | 41:259(c)(4). | June 30, 1949, ch. 288, title III, §309(c)(4), as added Pub. L. 98–369, title VII, §2711(a)(3), July 18, 1984, 98 Stat. 1180; Pub. L. 98–577, title V, §504(a)(4), Oct. 30, 1984, 98 Stat. 3086; Pub. L. 103–355, title I, §1551, Oct. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 3299. |
| | 41:403(6). | Pub. L. 93–400, §4(6), formerly §4(7), as added Pub. L. 98–369, title VII, §2731(3), July 18, 1984, 98 Stat. 1195; Pub. L. 98–577, title I, §102(1), Oct. 30, 1984, 98 Stat. 3067; redesignated as §4(6), Pub. L. 100–679, §3(c), Nov. 17, 1988, 102 Stat. 4056; Pub. L. 103–355, title VIII, §8001(b)(1)–(3), Oct. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 3386. |

Section
# L_2014254EN.01000101.xml

| 28.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 254/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 254/1

---

Notice concerning the provisional application of the Interim Partnership Agreement between the European Community, of the one part, and the Central Africa Party of the other part (1)

1

The European Union and the Republic of Cameroon have notified the completion of the procedures necessary for the provisional application of the Interim Agreement with a view to an Economic Partnership Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Central Africa Party, of the other part, in accordance with Article 98 of that Agreement. Consequently, the Agreement applies provisionally as from 4 August 2014 between the European Union and the Republic of Cameroon.

---

(1)  OJ L 57, 28.2.2009, p. 1.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          52,639
<SECURITIES>                                    26,731
<RECEIVABLES>                                  166,365
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,575
<INVENTORY>                                    285,109
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               548,308
<PP&E>                                         717,658
<DEPRECIATION>                                 174,228
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,129,871
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          351,158
<BONDS>                                        417,188
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,129,871
<SALES>                                      3,716,875
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,729,591
<CGS>                                        3,346,318
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,694,831
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                41,137
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              32,207
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (38,584)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    14,662
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (23,922)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (23,922)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
§ 25.31 Determining the amount of penalties and assessments. ( a ) In determining an appropriate amount of civil penalties and assessments, the ALJ and the authority head, upon appeal, should evaluate any circumstances that mitigate or aggravate the violation and should articulate in their opinions the reasons that support the penalties and assessments they impose. Because of the intangible costs of fraud, the expense of investigating such conduct, and the need to deter others who might be similarly tempted ordinarily double assessment, in lieu of damages, and a significant civil penalty should be imposed.
( b ) Although not exhaustive, the following factors are among those that may influence the ALJ and the authority head in determining the amount of penalties and assessments to impose with respect to the misconduct (*i.e.,* the false, fictitious, or fraudulent claims or statements) charged in the complaint: ( 1 ) The number of false, fictitious, or fraudulent claims or statements;
( 2 ) The time period over which such claims or statements were made;
( 3 ) The degree of the respondent's culpability with respect to the misconduct;
( 4 ) The amount of money or the value of the property, services, or benefit falsely claimed;
( 5 ) The value of the Government's actual loss as a result of the misconduct, including foreseeable consequential damages and the costs of investigation;
( 6 ) The relationship of the amount imposed as civil penalties to the amount of the Government's loss;
( 7 ) The potential or actual impact of the misconduct upon national defense, public health or safety, or public confidence in the management of Government programs and operations, including particularly the impact on the intended beneficiaries of such program;
( 8 ) Whether the respondent has engaged in a pattern of the same or similar misconduct;
( 9 ) Whether the respondent attempted to conceal the misconduct;
( 10 ) The degree to which the respondent has involved others in the misconduct or in concealing it;
( 11 ) Where the misconduct of employees or agents is imputed to the respondent, the extent to which the respondent's practices fostered or attempted to preclude such misconduct;
( 12 ) Whether the respondent cooperated in or obstructed an investigation of the misconduct;
( 13 ) Whether the respondent assisted in identifying and prosecuting other wrongdoers;
( 14 ) The complexity of the program or transaction, and the degree of the respondent's sophistication with respect to it, including the extent of the respondent's prior participation in the program or in similar transactions;
( 15 ) Whether the respondent has been found, in any criminal, civil, or administrative proceeding to have engaged in similar misconduct or to have dealt dishonestly with the Government of the United States or of a State directly or indirectly; and
( 16 ) The need to deter the respondent and others from engaging in the same or similar misconduct.
( c ) Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the ALJ or the authority head from considering any other factors that in any given case may mitigate or aggravate the offense for which penalties and assessments are imposed.
### §3148. Application of this subchapter to certain contracts

This subchapter applies to a contract authorized by law that is made without regard to section 6101(b) to (d) of title 41, or on a cost-plus-a-fixed-fee basis or otherwise without advertising for proposals, if this subchapter otherwise would apply to the contract.

(Pub. L. 107–217, Aug. 21, 2002, 116 Stat. 1153; Pub. L. 111–350, §5(l)(14), Jan. 4, 2011, 124 Stat. 3852.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 3148 | 40:276a–7. | Mar. 23, 1941, ch. 26 (last proviso in 5th complete par. on p. 53), 55 Stat. 53; Aug. 21, 1941, ch. 395 (last proviso in 14th par. on p. 664), 55 Stat. 664. |

Section

The words "this subchapter" are substituted for "such Act" to correct the reference as stated in 40:276a–7.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2011—Pub. L. 111–350 substituted "section 6101(b) to (d) of title 41" for "section 3709 of the Revised Statutes (41 U.S.C. 5)".
#### Elizabeth O’Neill *v.*Edward O’Neill

*Reuben S. Midler,*in support of the petition.

*Ronald D. Japha,*in opposition.

Decided March 10, 1988

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 13 Conn. App. 300, is denied.
Exhibit (10)(c)(2)(a)





Exhibit
(10)(c)(2)(a)


 


AMENDMENT
TO CHANGE IN CONTROL AGREEMENT


 


 


THIS AMENDMENT  (this
“Amendment”), effective as of October 23, 2003, by and between ALLTEL
Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the “Corporation”), and Kevin L. Beebe
(“Executive”), amends that certain Agreement, dated as of July 23, 1998, by and
between the Corporation and Executive (the “Agreement”).


 


In consideration
of the mutual covenants and agreements herein contained, and other good and
valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby
acknowledged, the parties hereto agree to amend the Agreement as follows:


 


1.  Section 1(C) of the Agreement is hereby
amended by deleting subsection (iv) in its entirety and changing subsection
(iii) to read as follows:


 


(iii) The consummation of
(A) a merger or consolidation of the Corporation, statutory share exchange, or
other similar transaction with another corporation, partnership, or other
entity or enterprise in which either the Corporation is not the surviving or
continuing corporation or shares of common stock of the Corporation are to be
converted into or exchanged for cash, securities other than common stock of the
Corporation, or other property, (B) a sale or disposition of all or
substantially all of the assets of the Corporation, or (C) the dissolution of
the Corporation.


 


2.  As amended
hereby, the Agreement shall be and remain in full force and effect.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this
Amendment as of the date first above written.


 


 


	
   

  	
  ALLTEL CORPORATION

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/ Scott T. Ford

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Scott T. Ford

  
	
   

  	
  President and Chief Executive Officer

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  EXECUTIVE:

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
    /s/ Kevin
  L. Beebe

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Kevin L. Beebe
### §120108. Records and inspection

(a) Records.—The corporation shall keep—

(1) correct and complete records of account;

(2) minutes of the proceedings of the members, board of directors, and committees of the corporation having any of the authority of the board of directors of the corporation; and

(3) at the principal office of the corporation, a record of the names and addresses of the members of the corporation entitled to vote on matters relating to the corporation.

(b) Inspection.—A member entitled to vote on any matter relating to the corporation, or an agent or attorney of the member, may inspect the records of the corporation for any proper purpose, at any reasonable time.

(Added Pub. L. 110–254, §1(a)(2), June 30, 2008, 122 Stat. 2421.)
§ 730.5 Coverage of more than exports. The core of the export control provisions of the EAR concerns exports from the United States. You will find, however, that some provisions give broad meaning to the term “export”, apply to transactions outside of the United States, or apply to activities other than exports. ( a ) *Reexports.* Commodities, software, and technology that have been exported from the United States are generally subject to the EAR with respect to reexport. Many such reexports, however, may go to many destinations without a license or will qualify for an exception from licensing requirements.
( b ) *Foreign products.* In some cases, exports from abroad, reexports or transfers (in-country) of items produced outside of the United States are subject to the EAR when they contain more than the *de minimis* amount of controlled U.S.-origin content as specified in § 734.4 of the EAR or when they are the direct product of specified “technology,” “software,” or a “plant or major component of a plant” as specified in § 736.2(b)(3) of the EAR.
( c ) *Scope of “exports”.* Certain actions that you might not regard as an “export” in other contexts do constitute an export subject to the EAR. The release of technology to a foreign national in the United States through such means as demonstration or oral briefing is deemed an export. Other examples of exports under the EAR include the return of foreign equipment to its country of origin after repair in the United States, shipments from a U.S. foreign trade zone, and the electronic transmission of non-public data that will be received abroad.
( d ) “ U.S. person” activities. The EAR restrict specific activities of “U.S. persons,” wherever located, related to the proliferation of nuclear explosive devices, “missiles,” chemical or biological weapons, whole plants for chemical weapons precursors, and certain military-intelligence end uses and end users, as described in § 744.6 of the EAR.
[61 FR 12734, Mar. 25, 1996, as amended at 61 FR 68577, Dec. 30, 1996; 74 FR 52882, Oct. 15, 2009; 85 FR 29852, May 19, 2020; 86 FR 4869, Jan. 15, 2021]
# L_2022247EN.01007401.xml

| 23.9.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 247/74 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.9.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 247/74

---

DECISION No 1/2022 of the EU-CTC Joint Committee established by the Convention of 20 May 1987 on the simplification of formalities in trade in goods

of 25 August 2022

as regards an invitation to Ukraine to accede to that Convention [2022/1641]

THE EU-CTC JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Convention of 20 May 1987 on the simplification of formalities in trade in goods (1), and in particular Article 11(3) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Ukraine has expressed its wish to accede to the Convention on the simplification of formalities in trade in goods (‘the Convention’). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Ukraine has expressed its wish to accede to the Convention on the simplification of formalities in trade in goods (‘the Convention’).

| (2) | The exchange of goods with Ukraine would be facilitated by a simplification of formalities which affect the trade in goods between Ukraine and the European Union, Iceland, North Macedonia, Norway, Serbia, Switzerland, Turkey and the United Kingdom. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The exchange of goods with Ukraine would be facilitated by a simplification of formalities which affect the trade in goods between Ukraine and the European Union, Iceland, North Macedonia, Norway, Serbia, Switzerland, Turkey and the United Kingdom.

| (3) | With a view to achieving such facilitation, it is appropriate to invite Ukraine to accede to the Convention, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

With a view to achieving such facilitation, it is appropriate to invite Ukraine to accede to the Convention,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Ukraine shall be invited to accede to the Convention in accordance with Article 11a of the Convention as from 1 October 2022.

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.

Done at Brussels, 25 August 2022.

For the EU-CTC Joint Committee

The President

Matthias PETSCHKE

---

(1)  
  OJ L 134, 22.5.1987, p. 2.

1

---
EXHIBIT 10.13


 


SUMMARY OF MANAGEMENT INCENTIVE PLAN
 
 In the first quarter of each year, in connection with the budgeting process, Axsys establishes financial performance targets and a related targeted bonus for many of our employees. Under the Management Incentive Plan, cash bonuses become payable to these employees after the end of the subsequent year and may vary from 0% to 100% or more of the employee’s targeted bonus based on the extent to which the financial performance targets are met.
, C.J. Hardesty compliance with SCR 117(4) and (5), we conclude that judicial efficiency will be best served if these matters are dismissed without prejudice. Accordingly, these matters are dismissed without prejudice to the State Bar's ability to reinitiate such proceedings, if appropriate, upon Coughlin's reinstatement to the active practice of law.

It is so ORDERED. 1

Gibbons Saitta

cc: Zachary Barker Coughlin David A. Clark, Bar Counsel Kimberly K. Farmer, Executive Director, State Bar of Nevada

1 Coughlin's requests to file additional documents and for remand to the disciplinary board are denied, as are all other requests pending in these matters. This order constitutes our final disposition of these matters.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A