alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 232.7 Preemption. ( a ) *Inconsistent laws.* 10 U.S.C. 987 as implemented by this part preempts any State or Federal law, rule or regulation, including any State usury law, to the extent such law, rule or regulation is inconsistent with this part, except that any such law, rule or regulation is not preempted by this part to the extent that it provides protection to a covered borrower greater than those protections provided by 10 U.S.C. 987 and this part.
( b ) *Different treatment under State law of covered borrowers is prohibited.* A State may not: ( 1 ) Authorize creditors to charge covered borrowers rates of interest for any consumer credit or loans that are higher than the legal limit for residents of the State, or
( 2 ) Permit the violation or waiver of any State consumer lending protection covering consumer credit that is for the benefit of residents of the State on the basis of the covered borrower's nonresident or military status, regardless of the covered borrower's domicile or permanent home of record, provided that the protection would otherwise apply to the covered borrower.
**EXHIBIT 10(t)**

 

Summary of Salary Continuation Death Benefits for Officers and Directors 

 

Resolution of the Board of Directors dated June 8, 2005 

 

RESOLVED: That in the event a corporate, Division or Subsidiary Officer (Salary Grade 10 andabove, and Salary Grade 9 with 20 years of service) should die while serving the Company in such position, the Company shall pay to the deceased’s surviving spouse, or if there be no surviving spouse to the deceased’s estate, theequivalent of one year’s salary (excluding any bonus) or compensation based upon the annual amount of Officer’s salary (excluding any bonus) at the time of his or her death, such amount to be paid in 24 equal monthly installmentscommencing one month from the date of death. 

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That inthe event a Director should die while serving the Company in such position, the Company shall pay to the deceased’s surviving spouse, or if there be no surviving spouse to the deceased’s estate, the equivalent of one year’s cashretainer plus any accrued but unpaid board and committee meeting fees that the deceased was entitled to receive for such services from the Company at the time of his or her death, such amount to be paid in one lump sum one month from the date ofdeath. 

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the Director’s stock retainer andrestricted stock that the deceased was to receive for services to the Company at the time of his or her death shall immediately vest and the Company will distribute to the deceased’s surviving spouse, or if there be no surviving spouse to thedeceased’s estate, a certificate for the shares.
**Exhibit 12.1**

I, Doron Birger, certify that:

|  | 1.
I have reviewed this amendment to annual report on Form 20-F of Elron Electronic Industries Ltd.; and
2.
Based on my knowledge, this amendment to 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, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual report. 
 

Date: March 8, 2004

 

 

 

/s/ Doron Birger

 

 

Doron BirgerPresident and Chief Executive Officer

 

 

 

  |
|--|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
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 the Quarterly Report of Escalade, Incorporated (the Company) on Form
10-Q for the period ending March 2, 2009 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Deborah Meinert,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,
as adopted pursuant to § 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 result of operations of the Company.

|                          | 
|------------------------- | 
|/s/ Deborah
  Meinert     | 
|                          | 
|Chief
  Financial Officer | 
|May 4, 2009               | 



---
Order filed, August 29, 2013.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-13-00416-CR

____________

CLAIRE A. WOLF, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 248th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1354683

ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case was due July 09, 2013. See Tex. R. App. 

P. 35.1. On July 17, 2013, this court ordered the court reporter to file the record 

within 30 days. The record has not been filed with the court. Because the 

reporter’s record has not been filed timely, we issue the following order.

We order Myrna Hargis, the official court reporter, to file the record in this 

appeal within 30 days of the date of this order. No further extension will be 
entertained absent exceptional circumstances. The trial and appellate courts are 

jointly responsible for ensuring that the appellate record is timely filed. See Tex. 

R. App. P. 35.3(c). If Myrna Hargis does not timely file the record as ordered, we 

will issue an order directing the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine the 

reason for the failure to file the record.

PER CURIAM
#### Monroe Paper Box Co., Inc., v. Harrison-Blaine, Inc.

Motion to dispense with printing and for a stay denied in all respects. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, McNally and Eager, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                             165
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   38,059
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      2,903
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                43,817
<PP&E>                                          50,724
<DEPRECIATION>                                  28,909
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  66,788
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           30,666
<BONDS>                                          1,201
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           671
<OTHER-SE>                                      34,851
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    66,788
<SALES>                                          6,134
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                33,008
<CGS>                                            5,169
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   28,940
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,304
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    14
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 205
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    559
<INCOME-TAX>                                       233
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                326
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       326
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .05
        

</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Eldridge Dukes, Appellant.

On the court’s own motion, the decision handed down May 2, 1960, as amended by the decision handed down September 26, 1960 (11 A D 2d 952), is further amended by striking out the designation of Mortimer C. O’Brien, Jr., Esq., as counsel to prosecute the appeal, and by designating Edward B. Willing, Esq., 22 West First Street, Mount Vernon, New York, as such counsel. The appellant’s time to perfect the appeal is further enlarged to the May Term, beginning April 24, 1961; appeal ordered on the calendar for said term. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Ughetta, Kleinfeld and Christ, JJ., concur.
#### § 202.14 Documenting and reporting activities and expenses.

The installation at which a RAB is established shall document the activities and meeting minutes and record the administrative expenses associated with the RAB in the information repository at a publicly accessible location. Installations shall use internal department and Military Component-specific reporting mechanisms to submit required information on RAB activities and expenditures.
§ 536.120 Claims payable as maritime claims. A claim is cognizable under this subpart if it arises in or on a maritime location, involves some traditional maritime nexus or activity, and is caused by the wrongful act or omission of a member of the U.S. Army, Department of Defense (DOD) or DA civilian employee, or an agent thereof, while acting within the scope of employment. This class of claims includes, but is not limited to: ( a ) Damage to a ship, boat, barge, or other watercraft;
( b ) An injury that involves a ship, boat, barge, or other watercraft;
( c ) Damage to a wharf, pier, jetty, fishing net, farm facilities or other structures in, on, or adjacent to any body of water;
( d ) Damage or injury on land or on water arising under the AEA and allegedly due to operation of an Army-owned or leased ship, boat, barge, or other watercraft;
( e ) An injury that occurs on board an Army ship, boat, barge or other watercraft; and
( f ) Crash into water of an Army aircraft.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. William Pelligrino Masselli, Appellant.

In a *coram nobis*proceeding, defendant appeals from an order of the County Court, Orange County, dated October 11, 1961, which denied, without a hearing, his application to vacate a judgment of said court, rendered March 24, 1958, on his plea of guilty, convicting hifn of robbery in the first degree, unarmed, and imposing sentence. Order affirmed. No opinion. Beldock, P. J., Christ, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
VICTOR ROME,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D15-5113

_____________________________/

Opinion filed February 10, 2016.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Escambia County.

Terry D. Terrell, Judge.

Victor Rome, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Giselle D. Lylen, Assistant Attorney 

General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS, SWANSON, and WINOKUR, JJ., CONCUR.
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We hereby consent to the incorporation byreference in the Registration Statements on Forms S-8 (Nos. 33-14706, 33-32622, 33-32623, 33-39187, 33-39204, 33-40795, 33-52617, 33-56639, 33-56641, 33-57763, 33-62138, 33-62140, 33-65401, 33-65403, 333-05743, 333-05745, 333-18283, 333-18339,333-38786, 333-38820, 333-42471, 333-42573, 333-42343, 333-42269, 333-50068, 333-50094, 333-66038, 333-66042, 333-68193, 333-68135, 333-68273, 333-75694, 333-79793, 333-79829, 333-88001, 333-91173, 333-91151, 333-91167, 333-98737 and 333-125044) ofRobert Half International Inc. of our report dated February 19, 2008, relating to the consolidated financial statements, financial statement schedule and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form10-K. 

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 

San Francisco,California 

February 19, 2008
#### Charles J. Lange and Josepha Lange, trading as Lange & Company, appellees, v. Louis Bernstein and Rebecca Bernstein, appellants.

Gen. No. 29,864.

Action to recover commission on sale of leasehold and furnishings. Judgment for plaintiffs. Appeal from the Municipal Oourt of Chicago; the Hon. Bernard P. Barasa, Judge, presiding. Heard in the first division of this court for the first district at the October term, 1924.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed April 13, 1925.

Harry Bierma, for appellants.

Thompson, Tyrrell & Chambers, for appellees; Walter H. Chambers, of counsel.

Mr. Justice Matchett

delivered the opinion of the court.
#### In the Matter of Solomon Berger, Respondent, v. Robert E. Herman, as State Rent Administrator, Appellant.

In a proceeding under article 78, of the Civil Practice Act, to review a determination of the State Rent Administrator who held that five apartments in a co-operative apartment house containing 16 apartments were not eligible for decontrol, the Administrator appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated March 29, 1960, granting petitioner’s application and annulling the Administrator’s determination. Order reversed on the law and the facts, with costs, determination of State Rent Administrator reinstated, and proceeding dismissed. Findings of fact inconsistent herewith are reversed, and new findings are made as indicated herein. The record supports the Administrator’s finding that the five subject apartments in the co-operative apartment house here involved were vacated by tenants or sublessees and not by their owners. Therefore, these five apartments were subject to control by the Administrator pursuant to paragraph (i) of subdivision 2 of section 2 of the Emergency Housing Rent Control Law (L. 1946, ch. 274, as amd.) and subdivision 12 of section 9 of the State Rent and Eviction Regulations. The learned Special Term erred in holding that the five apartments were decontrolled. The interpretation of the rent regulations by the Rent Administrator is entitled to great weight. His finding that these five apartments were not decontrolled is not arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable, and is supported by the evidence in this record *(Bowles*v. *Seminole Rock Co.,*325 U. S. 410, 413, 414; *Matter of Schwartz*v. *McGoldrick,*206 Misc. 444, 447; *Lightbody*v. *Russell,*293 N. Y. 492). The authorities which hold that an owner of a co-operative apartment may evict a tenant if he seeks possession in good faith for self-occupancy without a showing of immediate and compelling necessity *(Matter of Wattley*v. *State Rent Comm.,*280 App. Div. 762, affd. 304 N. Y. 819; *Matter of Flamman*v. *McGoldrick,*279 App. Div. 854; *Matter of Massey*v. *Temporary State Housing Rent Comm.,*279 App. Div. 1090), have no application here. In our opinion, an apartment in a co-operative apartment house becomes decontrolled only when it is vacated by an owner, and not by a *820tenant or a sublessee (Emergency Housing Rent Control Law, § 2, subd. 2, par. [i]; L. 1946, eh. 274, as amd.; State Rent and Eviction Regulations, § 9, subd. 12). Nolan, P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Christ and Pette, JJ., concur.
###### Editorial Note on Part 75

#### Editorial Note:

The provisions of this part marked [Statutory Provision] appear in Title III of the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969.

#### § 75.208 Warning devices.

Except during the installation of roof supports, the end of permanent roof support shall be posted with a readily visible warning, or a physical barrier shall be installed to impede travel beyond permanent support.
CERTIFICATE OF AMMENDMENT

                                     TO THE

                          CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION

                                       OF

                          AQUA VIE BEVERAGE CORPORATION

         Aqua Vie Beverage  Corporation,  a  corporation  organized and existing
under and by virtue of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware (the
"Company"), does hereby certify:

         FIRST:  That Article FOURTH of the Certificate of  Incorporation of the
Company is hereby  amended to increase the amount of total shares and common and
preferred  shares  which may be issued by  amending  the first  sentence of said
paragraph to read as follows:

         "The  total  number  of  shares  of all  classes  of  stock  which  the
corporation  shall have  authority to issue shall be  5,005,000,000  shares,  of
which 5,000,000  shares will be preferred stock of the par value of one tenth of
a cent each ($.001),  (hereinafter  called the  "Preferred  Stock") and of which
5,000,000,000  shares  shall be common  stock of the par value of one tenth of a
cent each ($.001) (hereinafter called the "Common Stock")"

         SECOND:  That the foregoing  amendment was duly adopted by the Board of
Directors and  stockholders  of the Company in accordance with the provisions of
Sections 228 and 242 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware.

         THIRD:  That the effective date of this  Certificate of Amendment shall
be midnight on the day it is filed with the Secretary of State.

         IN  WITNESS  WHEREOF,  THE  company  has  caused  this  Certificate  of
Amendment  to be signed by its duly  authorized  officer  this 22nd day of July,
2002.

AQUA VIE BEVERAGE CORPORATION

By: /s/ Thomas Gillespie
   --------------------------------
        Thomas Gillespie, President
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-25-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-25-1997
<CASH>                                      16,772,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               78,883,000
<ALLOWANCES>                               (1,532,000)
<INVENTORY>                                 99,005,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           220,413,000
<PP&E>                                     585,877,000
<DEPRECIATION>                             138,896,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             829,403,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      133,878,000
<BONDS>                                    509,579,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       147,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  86,195,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               829,403,000
<SALES>                                    466,072,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           466,072,000
<CGS>                                      350,061,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              350,061,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                43,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          42,335,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (25,581,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                              (14,770,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (10,811,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (10,811,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.74)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.74)
        

</TABLE>
EDUCATIONAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Exhibit 32.1
Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
In connection with the Quarterly Report of Educational Development Corporation (the “Company”) onForm 10-Q for the period ended November 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Randall W. White, President and Chief ExecutiveOfficer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
1.  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and 2.  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.     Date January 14, 2005       By      /s/ Randall W. White         Randall W. White         President and Chief Executive Officer
The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is notbeing filed as part of the Report or as a separate document. A signed original of this writtenstatement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by theCompany and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
§ 536.109 Claims not payable under international agreements (for those arising in the United States). The following claims are not payable: ( a ) Claims arising from a member of a foreign force or civilian component's acts or omissions that do not accord with the objectives of a treaty authorizing their presence in the United States.
( b ) Claims arising from the acts or omissions of a member of a foreign force or civilian component who has been excluded from SOFA coverage by agreement between the sending State and the United States.
( c ) Third-party scope claims arising within the United States that are not payable under subparts C, D, or H of this part are listed as barred under those subparts. As sending State forces are considered assimilated into the U.S. Armed Services for purposes of the SOFAs, their members are also barred from receiving compensation from the United States when they are injured incident to their service, *Daberkow* v. *United States*, 581 F.2d 785 (9th Cir. 1978).
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Toronto Clayvernon Williams, * From the 70th District Court

of Ector County,

Trial Court No. A-18-1436-CR.

Vs. No. 11-19-00184-CR * January 16, 2020

The State of Texas, * Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

(Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Stretcher, J., and Wright, S.C.J., 

sitting by assignment)

(Willson, J., not participating)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is error 

in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s opinion, we modify 

the judgment of the trial court to change the Time Payment Fee from $25.00 to $2.50 

and affirm the judgment as modified.