alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### E Y GENERAL OF TEXAS

Hon. Sam Lee County Attorney Brazoria County Angleton,Texas OpinionNo. 

### S-36
Re: Authority of the commissioners' court to approve the expenditure of county funds to'send a representative to Mexico City to conferwith various interested persons respecting removal of a ban by theRepublic of Mexico on the use of migratory labor in Brazoria Dear Sir: county.

You have requested an opinion on the authority of the commissioners'court to pay the expenses of a representativeof Brazoria County attending a conference with the Fresident of Mexico and other officials in Mexico City, being held for the~purposeof considering if a ban by the'Governmentof Mexico on the use of migratory labor in Brazoria County should be lifted.,

The commissioners'court is a co'urt of limited jurisdictionand has only such 'powers as are conferred upon it by the C,onstitution or statutes of this State either by express terms or by necessary implication. Childress Count 

### .343, 92 S.W.2d 1011 

### 173S.W. 508 (Tex.Civ. Hall, 

### ,280

S.W.289 ~"~:,f5~t~~~'~~n76~ps.

We know of no provision placing a duty on any official to attend conferencesof the nature outlined in your requestand we know of no provision authorizing the commissioners'court to pay the expenses of officials attending such a conference. We,therefore agreewith your conclusion 'thatthe commissioners'court of Brazoria County can not expend'taxmoneys to pay the expenses of a representative to Mexico City to participate in a conference to have the ban lifted on the us'eof migratory labor in Brazoria County.Hon. Sam Lee, page 2 

### (S-36)

The commissioners'court does not have authority~topay the expenses of a representative to Mexico City to pzrticipate ina conference to considerremoval of a ban by the Government of Mexico on the use of migratory labor in Brazoria Co.unty. You73everytruly,
APPROVED:
J. C. Davis, Jr. County Affairs Division Willis E. Gresham Reviews Robert S. Trotti First~~~Assistan-t John'Ban Shepperd Attorney General
JR:am JOHNBEN SHEPPERD Attorney General

Assistant
kl09037_ex4-20.htm

 

    
      

    

     

    Exhibit 4.20

    
 

    THIS
AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT
AGREEMENT dated for reference the 1st day of October, 2009 (the
“Amendment”).

    


    BETWEEN:

    HELIX
BIOPHARMA CORP.

    (the
“Company”)

    AND:

    WILLIAM H.
CHICK

    (the
“Executive”)

    


    WHEREAS:

    


    
      	
              A.  

            	
              the
      Executive and Rivex Pharma Inc. entered into an employment agreement dated
      for reference July 25, 1997 (the “Employment
  Agreement”);

            


    

    
      	
              B.  

            	
              Rivex
      Pharma Inc. and Helix BioPharma Corp. subsequently amalgamated to form the
      Company such that the Employment Agreement is now between the Company and
      the Executive;

            


    

    
      	
              C.  

            	
              the
      parties wish to amend the Employment Agreement, upon the terms set out in
      this Amendment;

            


    

    


    THEREFORE in consideration of
the recitals, the following covenants and the payment of one dollar made by each
party to the other, the receipt and sufficiency of which is acknowledged by each
party, the parties agree on the following terms:

    


    
      	
              1.  

            	
              The
      third paragraph of the Employment Agreement is deleted and replaced with
      the following, with effect on and after December 17,
  2008:

            


    

    


    “Title:  VP
Product Distribution”

    


    
      	
              2.  

            	
              The
      first clause after the third paragraph of the Employment Agreement is
      deleted and replaced with the following, with effect on and after January
      1, 2008:

            


    

    


    “ ●           Base
Salary  $122,500”

    


    
      	
              3.  

            	
              The
      parties confirm that, as of August 1, 2005, the performance compensation
      is 1.5% of the first $1.5M of gross sales, and 2% of gross sales
      thereafter.

            


    

     

    
      
        	
                4.  

              	
                All
      other provisions of the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force
      and effect, except that where this Amendment may be in conflict with the
      provisions of the Employment Agreement, then this Amendment shall
      govern.

              


      

       

    

    


    In Witness
Whereof, the parties hereto have duly executed this Amendment as of the
day and year first above written.

    


    


    HELIX
BIOPHARMA CORP.

    


    Per:

    /s/  Donald H.
Segal                                     


    Authorized
Signatory

    


    


    


    /s/  William H.
Chick                                    


    WILLIAM
H. CHICK
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER OF REINSTATEMENT

Appellate case name: Jamelle Andrea Peterkin v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-18-01090-CR

Trial court case number: 1548100

Trial court: 351st District Court of Harris County

On October 1, 2019, the Court abated this appeal to allow appellant, Jamelle Andrea 

Peterkin, to file a motion for new trial in the trial court. On December 30, 2019, the trial 

court clerk filed a supplemental clerk’s record indicating that the trial court denied 

appellant’s motion for new trial. Accordingly, we reinstate this appeal.

Appellant may file a supplemental brief of any issue relating to the trial court’s 

denial of her motion for new trial within 30 days of the date of this order. 

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Evelyn V. Keyes

 Acting individually Acting for the Court

Date: ____January 9, 2020___
REGULATORY EVALUATION

Directorate Identifier: 2012-NM-121-AD

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific 

requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of 

transportation?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)
# C_2017373EN.01000101.xml

| 4.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 373/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 373/1

---

Interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations (1):

1

0,00 % on 1 November 2017

Euro exchange rates (2)

2

1 November 2017

(2017/C 373/01)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1612 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 132,60 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4415 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,87385 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,7535 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,1640 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,4610 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,557 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 311,75 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2338 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,6033 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 4,4394 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5136 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4986 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,0593 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6866 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5808 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 291,51 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 16,3914 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,6767 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5200 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 773,74 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,9136 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 60,007 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 67,5100 |
| THB | Thai baht | 38,505 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,8150 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 22,2765 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 75,0130 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1612

JPY

Japanese yen

132,60

DKK

Danish krone

7,4415

GBP

Pound sterling

0,87385

SEK

Swedish krona

9,7535

CHF

Swiss franc

1,1640

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,4610

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,557

HUF

Hungarian forint

311,75

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2338

RON

Romanian leu

4,6033

TRY

Turkish lira

4,4394

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5136

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4986

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,0593

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6866

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5808

KRW

South Korean won

1 291,51

ZAR

South African rand

16,3914

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,6767

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5200

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 773,74

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,9136

PHP

Philippine peso

60,007

RUB

Russian rouble

67,5100

THB

Thai baht

38,505

BRL

Brazilian real

3,8150

MXN

Mexican peso

22,2765

INR

Indian rupee

75,0130

---

(1)  Rate applied to the most recent operation carried out before the indicated day. In the case of a variable rate tender, the interest rate is the marginal rate.

1

(2)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

2

Source

---
----

**NOTE:**On February 1, 2022, OSERS will complete the migration its IDEA Section 618 Data Products to a new, improved platform on OpenData. This new enhanced site is now online for you to check out and we suggest changing any links or bookmarks to reflect this new site's URL: 

**https://data.ed.gov/dataset/idea-section-618-data-products**

Section 618 of the *Individuals with Disabilities Education Act* (*IDEA*) requires that each state submit data about the infants and toddlers, birth through age 2, who receive early intervention services under Part C of *IDEA* and children with disabilities, ages 3 through 21, who receive special education and related services under Part B of *IDEA*.

**Collection Documentation****State Level Data Files****Static Data Tables****Useful Data Links*****IDEA* Annual Reports to Congress****Contact Us**

 Top
Discrimination  on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, or disability is prohibited  in all of a school's educational programs and activities, including STEM  courses and programs. Schools must ensure that their STEM courses and programs  are free from these forms of discrimination.  ****

STEM classes  are critical to preparing students for college and careers in the 21st  century. Ensuring access to STEM for all students is an important priority for  the Office for Civil Rights. The Office for Civil Rights continuously strives  to provide guidance and support to schools and colleges to bolster access to  STEM courses and programs for all students. 

**Office for Civil Rights Resources**

"Dear Colleague" letter on Gender Equity in Career and Technical Education (June 15, 2016) PDF (590.96K)

Title  IX and Access to Courses and Programs in Science, Technology, Engineering, and  Math (PowerPoint, October 2012) PDF (474K) 

“Dear Colleague” Letter:  35th Anniversary of Title IX (June 23, 2007)  PDF (2.4M)

Sexual Harassment

“Dear Colleague”  Letter: Title VI Access to Advanced Placement and Other Challenging Courses  (May 22, 2008)  PDF (3.6M)

Racial Harassment

“Dear Colleague”  Letter: Access by Students with Disabilities to Accelerated Programs (December  26, 2007)  PDF (2.8M) 

**Links to Other Resources**

Equity Assistance Centers

Encouraging Girls in Math and  Science IES Practice Guide

 

Top
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 470 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 470

  Expressing the sense of the Senate that electricity markets do not 
   appropriately value the reliability and resilience attributes of 
        baseload power generation serving the bulk power system.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 17, 2018

 Mr. Manchin submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
             the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Expressing the sense of the Senate that electricity markets do not 
   appropriately value the reliability and resilience attributes of 
        baseload power generation serving the bulk power system.

Whereas the power generation resource mix of the United States is rapidly 
        changing, presenting ongoing challenges to ensuring that baseload units 
        remain operational and provide enhanced resilience and reliability to 
        the power grid of the United States;
Whereas many baseload units are not appropriately valued for the resilience and 
        reliability attributes those units provide to the power grid of the 
        United States;
Whereas accelerated retirements of coal-fired and nuclear baseload power 
        generation resources are among those challenges, including how those 
        resources are needed--

    (1) to provide dependable capacity to serve customers;

    (2) to support essential grid services, such as voltage and frequency 
support and ramping capability;

    (3) to offer high availability and reliability from significant on-site 
fuel storage; and

    (4) to support integration of new generation resources; and

Whereas in Docket Numbers RM18-000-001 and AD18-7-001, and in other proceedings, 
        the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has compiled extensive evidence 
        documenting the reliability and resilience attributes of all power 
        generation resources: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission should take action to ensure that the 
electricity markets fully recognize the reliability and resilience 
benefits of coal-fired and nuclear baseload power generation resources 
serving the bulk power system.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2017444EN.01000601.xml

| 23.12.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 444/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 444/6

---

New national side of euro coins intended for circulation

(2017/C 444/07)

Image

Euro coins intended for circulation have legal tender status throughout the euro area. For the purpose of informing the public and all parties who handle the coins, the Commission publishes a description of the designs of all new coins (1). In accordance with the Council conclusions of 10 February 2009 (2), euro-area Member States and countries that have concluded a monetary agreement with the European Union providing for the issuing of euro coins are allowed to issue commemorative euro coins intended for circulation, provided that certain conditions are met, particularly that only the 2-euro denomination is used. These coins have the same technical characteristics as other 2-euro coins, but their national face features a commemorative design that is highly symbolic in national or European terms.

1

2

Issuing country
  : Estonia

Issuing country

Subject of commemoration
  : The centennial of the independence of Estonia

Subject of commemoration

Description of the design
  : The design depicts simultaneously the numbers 18 and 100, which symbolize the time when Estonia became an independent country and furthermore reflect the past hundred years. At the bottom right is the text ‘SADA AASTAT EESTI VABARIIKI’ and next to it the name of the country ‘EESTI’ and the year of issuance ‘2018’.

Description of the design

The coin’s outer ring depicts the 12 stars of the European flag.

Estimated number of coins to be issued
  :

Estimated number of coins to be issued

Date of issue
  : January/February 2018

Date of issue

---

(1)  See OJ C 373, 28.12.2001, p. 1 for the national faces of all the coins issued in 2002.

1

(2)  See the conclusions of the Economic and Financial Affairs Council of 10 February 2009 and the Commission Recommendation of 19 December 2008 on common guidelines for the national sides and the issuance of euro coins intended for circulation (OJ L 9, 14.1.2009, p. 52).

2

---
#### Wiggins *v.*Lynn.

January 21, 1913.

Petition for specific performance. Before Judge Bell. Fulton superior court. October 27, 1911.

*F. E. Radensleben,*for plaintiff.

*Lowndes*Calhoun, for defendant.

Eish, C. J.

The alleged contract, the specific performance of which is sought in this case, has been held by this court in *Gray*v. *Lynn,*this day decided, not to be binding on Lynn, the defendant in the present case, for the reason that there was a variance between the written offer by Wiggins, tlie plaintiff herein, to purchase the realty, the subject-matter of the alleged contract, and the alleged written acceptance of the same by the defendant, Lynn. It follows that, as the same variance appears from the petition in the present case, the trial court properly sustained the general demurrer to the petition.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
# First in the World Program

# Bettinger-Baker Study Summary

� Of the findings listed, the What Works Clearinghouse’s single study review only reported on the aggregate retention finding and confirmed the finding’s statistical significance. The single study review included in the What Works Clearinghouse did not report on differences in treatment effects between different subgroups of students.
<PAGE>

CASCADE CORPORATION                                                 EXHIBIT 11.

Computation of Earnings Per Share
(In thousands except per share data)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                    QUARTER ENDED APRIL 30
                                                         1999                                       1998
                                        -------------------------------------    ----------------------------------------
                                                                    PER SHARE                                   PER SHARE
                                          INCOME        SHARES        AMOUNT       INCOME          SHARES         AMOUNT
                                        (Numerator)  (Denominator)               (Numerator)    (Denominator)
                                        -------------------------------------    ----------------------------------------
<S>                                     <C>          <C>            <C>          <C>            <C>             <C>
Net income                                $4,110                                   $6,815
Less: preferred stock dividend              (110)                                    (143)
BASIC EPS
                                          ------                                   ------
Income available to
 common shareholders                       4,000         11,534        $0.35        6,672           11,862         $0.56
                                                                       -----                                       -----
                                                                       -----                                       -----
Effect of dilutive securities
Manditorily redeemable convertible
 preferred stock                              80            800                       110            1,100
Exchangeable preferred stock                  30            305                        33              328
Incentive stock options                       -              -                         -                 8
                                          ------         ------                    ------           ------
DILUTED EPS
Income available to common
 shareholder plus assumed
 conversions                              $4,110         12,639        $0.33       $6,815           13,298         $0.51
                                          ------         ------        -----       ------           ------         -----
                                          ------         ------        -----       ------           ------         -----
</TABLE>
2509.410 Appeals. ( a ) A debarred or suspended contractor may appeal to the Director in writing within 30 days after receiving notice of the debarring or suspending official's decision in accordance with 48 CFR 9.406-3(e) or 9.407-3(d)(4). The debarring or suspending official's decision becomes a final administrative action if not appealed within the 30 day period.
( b ) The Director may appoint an uninvolved NSF officer or employee to review an appeal and make recommendations.
( c ) The Director will inform the appellant of a final decision within 30 days after receiving the appeal. That decision will be the final administrative action of the Foundation.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Alan Vituli, Chief Executive Officer of Carrols Restaurant Group, Inc. (the
Company), hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 28, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                 
|-------------------------------------------------
|/s/ ALAN VITULI                                  
|Alan Vituli                                      
|Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer

August 5, 2009
#### WEBER, Appellant, v. LEVY, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

November 25, 1903.)

Action by Frank Weber against Morris Levy.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.