alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 12

- 00039

- CR

Edgar Alfredo Mata

v.

The State of Texas §

§

§

§

§ From Criminal District Court No. 3

o f Tarrant County (1230779D )

June 20 , 2013

P er C uriam

(nfp)



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

PER CURIAM
exv10w8



 







Exhibit 10.8




A. M. Castle & Co.




January 25, 2006




Mr. G. Thomas McKane

1 E. Schiller, No. 14D

Chicago, IL 60610




Dear Tom:



This Letter Agreement confirms the amended terms of your employment with A.M. Castle & Co.
(“Castle”).



As of January 26, 2006, the Castle Board of Directors elected a new President and Chief Executive
Officer. You continued your employment by Castle as Chairman of the Board. Your duties, in
addition to those of Chairman of the Board, will be to participate in the preparation of Castle’s
annual report on Form 10-K, annual report to shareholders and proxy statement and in investor
relations and such other duties as may be assigned by the Board of Directors or requested by the
President and CEO of Castle.



During the period of January 26, 2006 through March 31, 2006, you will continue as a full time
employee and your base salary will remain at the level of $520,000 per annum. Your long-term
incentive, based upon the current grant of 113,700 target performance shares, will be adjusted to
reflect this level for 15/36 of the performance period and will be paid at the end of the
performance period.



After March 31, 2006, your employment duties will be at reasonable times as arranged between you
and the President and CEO of Castle and your base salary will be a the level of $100,000 per annum.
This will continue until your retirement or separation from Castle (expected to be not before the
January 2007 meeting of the Castle Board of Directors). Your long-term incentive will be based
upon a grant of 21,865 target performance shares and adjusted to reflect this level for the portion
of the performance period represented by (i) the number of months employed during the period April
1, 2006 to your final termination date, divided by (ii) 36.



Your annual management incentive opportunity for 2006 will be 62.5% of base salary at target with a
maximum of 125% of base salary, with pro rata adjustments to reflect the two periods of different
base salary as described above. All other benefits which you presently have will continue until
the termination of your employment with Castle.



Upon the termination of your employment with Castle, Castle will transfer to you, at no cost, your
company car and will extend coverage under the medical and dental benefit plans provided by Castle
from time to time for you and your wife, Mary, until each of you reaches the age of 65




3400 No. Wolf Road, Franklin Park, Illinois 60131 (847) 455-7111




76









 





Exhibit
10.8



(coincident with COBRA benefits).If Castle’s plans do not permit such coverage, Castle will
provide you with the economic equivalent



Your existing Employment/Non-Competition Agreement is amended as provided in this Letter Agreement
and otherwise remains in full force and effect.




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	A.M. CASTLE & CO.	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	/s/ John McCartney	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 
	 	 	By John McCartney, Lead Director	 	 






	 	 	 
	ACCEPTED:
	 	 
	 
	 	 
	/s/ G. Thomas McKane
	 	 
	 	 	 
	G. Thomas McKane
	 	 






77
Resources

# 1998–2012 North Pacific Groundfish Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation Reports

May 01, 2012

Stock assessment and fishery evaluation reports archive from 1998–2012.

North Pacific Groundfish Stock Assessments        

Data|Alaska

## Additional Resources

                - Alaska Marine Ecosystem Status Report Archive
                - Alaska Fisheries Life History Database
                - Alaska Groundfish Survey Data Map
                - Groundfish Bottom Trawl Survey Protocols
                - Groundfish Species and Survey Codebook

Last updated by                                                                     Alaska Fisheries Science Center  on 07/21/2021

Age and Growth
Alaska Pollock
Sablefish
Status of Stocks and Multispecies Assessment Program
North Pacific Groundfish Stock Assessments

## More Information 

                -  North Pacific Groundfish Stock Assessments and Fishery Evaluation Reports 
                -  Alaska Stock Assessments 
                -  Groundfish and Shellfish Assessment Surveys Sample Request Instructions 
                -  Southeast Alaska Coastal Monitoring Survey Reports 
                -  Essential Fish Habitat Research Plan in Alaska 
                -  Alaska Groundfish Bottom Trawl Survey Data 
                -  Ecosystem Status Reports for the Gulf of Alaska, Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands 
                -  Alaska Fisheries Science Center
Exhibit 13.2

MANAGEMENT'S REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING

Management of Sasol is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting as defined in
Rule 13a-15(f) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Under Section 404 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, management is required to assess the effectiveness of the
Company's internal control over financial reporting as of the end of each fiscal year and report, based on that assessment, whether the Company's internal control over financial reporting is
effective.

Sasol's
internal control over financial reporting is a process designed under the supervision of the chief executive and chief financial officer to provide reasonable assurance as to the
reliability of Sasol's financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.

Internal
control over financial reporting includes those policies and procedures that (i) pertain to the maintenance of records that in reasonable detail accurately and fairly
reflect the transactions and dispositions of our assets; (ii) provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in
accordance with generally accepted accounting practice, and that receipts and expenditures are being made only in accordance with authorisations of our management and directors; and
(iii) provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorised acquisition, use or disposition of assets that could have a material effect on the financial
statements.

Because
of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements. Therefore, even those systems determined to be effective can
provide only reasonable assurance with respect to financial statement preparation and presentation.

Management
assessed the effectiveness of Sasol's internal control over financial reporting as of 30 June 2008. In making this assessment, management used the criteria set forth by
the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO) in "Internal ControlIntegrated Framework". Based on our assessment, we believe that, as of 30 June 2008,
Sasol's internal control over financial reporting was effective.

KPMG Inc.,
an independent registered public accounting firm, has issued an opinion on the effectiveness of Sasol's internal control over financial reporting as stated in their
report which appears herein.

Date: 6 October 2008By:

/s/ LAWRENCE PATRICK ADRIAN DAVIESLawrence Patrick Adrian Davies
Chief executiveDate: 6 October 2008By:

/s/ KANDIMATHIE CHRISTINE RAMONKandimathie Christine Ramon
Chief Financial officer


---



QuickLinks
### §8954. Benefits

(a) The Office may prescribe reasonable minimum standards for enhanced dental benefits plans offered under this chapter and for qualified companies offering the plans.

(b) Each contract may include more than 1 level of benefits that shall be made available to all eligible individuals.

(c) The benefits to be provided under enhanced dental benefits plans under this chapter may be of the following types:

(1) Diagnostic.

(2) Preventive.

(3) Emergency care.

(4) Restorative.

(5) Oral and maxillofacial surgery.

(6) Endodontics.

(7) Periodontics.

(8) Prosthodontics.

(9) Orthodontics.

(d) A contract approved under this chapter shall require the qualified company to cover the geographic service delivery area specified by the Office. The Office shall require qualified companies to include dentally underserved areas in their service delivery areas.

(e) If an individual has dental coverage under a health benefits plan under chapter 89 and also has coverage under a plan under this chapter, the health benefits plan under chapter 89 shall be the first payor of any benefit payments.

(Added Pub. L. 108–496, §2, Dec. 23, 2004, 118 Stat. 4003.)

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date

Section effective Dec. 23, 2004, and applicable to contracts that take effect with respect to the calendar year 2006, see section 7 of Pub. L. 108–496, set out as a note under section 8951 of this title.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsPolarized-interferometer feasibility studyThe feasibility of using a polarized-interferometer system as a rendezvous and docking sensor for two cooperating spacecraft was studied. The polarized interferometer is a radio frequency system for long range, real time determination of relative position and attitude. Range is determined by round trip signal timing. Direction is determined by radio interferometry. Relative roll is determined from signal polarization. Each spacecraft is equipped with a transponder and an antenna array. The antenna arrays consist of four crossed dipoles that can transmit or receive either circularly or linearly polarized signals. The active spacecraft is equipped with a sophisticated transponder and makes all measurements. The transponder on the passive spacecraft is a relatively simple repeater. An initialization algorithm is developed to estimate position and attitude without any a priori information. A tracking algorithm based upon minimum variance linear estimators is also developed. Techniques to simplify the transponder on the passive spacecraft are investigated and a suitable configuration is determined. A multiple carrier CW signal format is selected. The dependence of range accuracy and ambiguity resolution error probability are derived and used to design a candidate system. The validity of the design and the feasibility of the polarized interferometer concept are verified by simulation.Document ID19840012737Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsRaab, F. H.*(Green Mountain Radio Research Co. Winooski, VT, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 4, 2013Publication DateJuly 1, 1983Subject CategoryInstrumentation And PhotographyReport/Patent NumberNASA-CR-170979NAS 1.26:170979Accession Number84N20805Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NAS8-34960Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19840012737.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
### **CHAPTER 48—HUMANE METHODS OF LIVESTOCK SLAUGHTER**

Sec.
1901.
Findings and declaration of policy.
1902.
Humane methods.
1903.
Repealed.
1904.
Methods research; designation of methods.
1905.
Repealed.
1906.
Exemption of ritual slaughter.
1907.
Practices involving nonambulatory livestock.
Exhibit 31.1 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

I, Gregg A. Ostrander, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Michael Foods, Inc.; 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this report is being prepared; 

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter of 2006 that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

a) all significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting. 

Date: March 29, 2007
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Robert L. Bailey hereby certify, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in my capacity as an officer of PMC-Sierra, Inc. (PMC), that, to my knowledge, the Annual Report of PMC on Form 10-K for the annual period ended December 31, 2005, fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13 (a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of PMC.



|                    |  |  |  |     |  |                      |  |                                      
|------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | -------------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|                    |  |  | 
|Date: March 8, 2006 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Robert L. Bailey
|                    |  |  |  |     |  |                      |  | Robert L. Bailey                     
|                    |  |  |  |     |  |                      |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

FORT WORTH 

NO. 02-13-00398-CV

Arjana Muhametaj, d/b/a Little 

Brothers Family Restaurant, a/k/a 

Family Restaurant

v.

Northern Trust Bank of California, 

N.A. and Bruce R. McAllister, not 

personally but solely as co-trustees 

of the MRM 1990 Trust f/b/o Bruce 

R. McAllister (f/k/a Margot M. 

Dippert), not personally but solely as 

co-trustees of the MRM 1990 Trust 

f/b/o Margot M. Dippert, Durango 

Restaurants, LLC, d/b/a Little 

Caesar’s Restaurant

§

§

§

§

§

From the 153rd District Court

of Tarrant County (153-265909-13)

February 6, 2014

Opinion by Justice McCoy

JUDGMENT 

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

the appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed for 

want of jurisdiction. 

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Bob McCoy

 Justice Bob McCoy
<PAGE>


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


                                                                               Exhibit 21



                          THE WASHINGTON CORPORATION--SUBSIDIARIES
                                 As of December 31, 1998



                                                   State of
                                                   Formation or                 Date of
         Subsidiary                                Incorporation                Formation
         ----------                                -------------                ---------

<S>                                                 <C>                         <C>

Arlington Square Limited Partnership                 Maryland                   09/17/85

Four Year Trail Limited Partnership                  Virginia                   09/16/87

Nanjemoy Associates Limited Partnership              Maryland                   01/11/88

TWC Development Corporation                          Maryland                   04/08/85

TWC Real Estate, Inc.                                Virginia                   04/15/85

Arlington Square, Inc.                               Virginia                   02/28/91

Four Year Trail, Inc.                                Virginia                   02/28/91

</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ronald A. McFadden, Appellant.

[834 NYS2d 598]—

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Dennis M. Kehoe, J.), rendered May 28, 2004. The judg*1212ment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of murder in the second degree and attempted robbery in the first degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of murder in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.25 [3]) and attempted robbery in the first degree (§§ 110.00, 160.15 [4]). We reject the contention of defendant that he was denied effective assistance of counsel based on defense counsel’s failure to object to the cross-examination of defendant on an unrelated pending charge. In view of the overwhelming evidence against defendant, we conclude that defense counsel’s “single failing in an otherwise competent performance [was not] so ‘egregious and prejudicial’ as to deprive . . . defendant of his constitutional right [to a fair trial]” *(People v Turner,*5 NY3d 476, 480 [2005]; *see generally People v Caban,*5 NY3d 143, 152 [2005]; *People v Benevento,*91 NY2d 708, 712-713 [1998]). Finally, the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence *(see generally People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Martoche, Smith, Centra and Peradotto, JJ.
SEVERANCE AGREEMENT

This Severance Agreement (Agreement) is entered into as of June 5, 2006, by and between Jay B. Knoll ("Employee") and Energy Conversion Devices, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Corporation").

**Section 1 – Employment**

The Employee's employment with the Corporation began on June 5, 2006.

**Section 2 – Right to Terminate; Automatic Termination of Employment**

(a)       Termination Without Cause.  Subject to Section 3 of this Agreement, the Corporation may terminate Employee’s employment at any time and for any reason.

(b)         Termination For Cause.  The Corporation may terminate Employee’s employment at any time for “Cause” (as defined below) by giving ten (10) business days notice to Employee stating the basis for such termination.  Employee shall have the opportunity to respond or cure the reasons stated in the Corporation notice during the ten (10) business day notice period.  “Cause” shall mean any of the following:  

(i)   Employee has materially breached this Agreement or any other agreement to which Employee and the Corporation or its subsidiaries are parties or has materially breached any other obligation or duty owed to the Corporation or its subsidiaries; 

(ii)   Employee has committed gross negligence, gross misconduct or conviction of a violation of law in the performance of Employee’s duties for the Corporation or its subsidiaries (Violation of the law shall not include traffic violations or misdemeanors); 

(iii)   Employee has materially failed to follow reasonable, ethical and lawful instructions from the Board, officer, body or other entity or individual to whom Employee reports concerning the operations or business of the Corporation or its subsidiaries; 

(iv)   Employee has been convicted of a felony the circumstances of which substantially relate to Employee’s employment duties with the Corporation or its subsidiaries; 

(v)   Employee has misappropriated funds or property of the Corporation or its subsidiaries; 

(vi)   Employee has attempted to obtain a personal profit from any transaction in which the Corporation or its subsidiaries has an interest, and which constitutes a corporate opportunity of the Corporation or its subsidiaries, or which is adverse to the interests of the Corporation or its subsidiaries, unless the transaction was approved in writing by the Corporation’s Board after full disclosure of all details relating to such transaction.

(c)         Termination by Death or Disability.  Employee’s employment and the Corporation’s obligations under this Agreement shall terminate automatically, effective immediately and without any notice being necessary, upon Employee’s death or upon expiration of three (3) months after a determination of Disability of Employee.  For purposes of this Agreement, “Disability” means the inability of Employee, due to a physical or mental 

 

1

 

----