alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

KEVIN EPPERSON , Defendant Below

Appellant,

v. STATE OF DELAWARE,

Plaintiff Below

Appellee. § § § No. 573, 2014 § § § Court Below

— Superior Court § of the State of Delaware, § in and for New Castle Co unty § Cr. ID 9408009291 § §

Submitted: October 14, 2014

Decided: November 17 , 2014

Before STRINE , Chief Justice, RIDGELY , and VALIHURA , Justices.

O R D E R

This 17 th d ay of November 2014 , upon consideration of the appellant’s req uest for leave to file an appeal from the Superior Court’s denial of his twentieth motion for postconviction relief and his response to the Court’s rule to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed, it appears to the Court that: (1) The appellant, Kevin Epperson, was convicted by a Superior Court jury in 1996 of Kidnapping in the First Degree and Unlawful Sexual Contact in the First Degree. He was sentenced as a habitual offender to serve fifty

- two years in prison followed by a period of probation . His convictions and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal.2 (2) In 2006, following his appeal from the Superior Court’s denial of his eighth postconviction motion, this Court noted that Epperson’s repetitive filings were frivolous and constituted an a buse of the judicial process. We, therefore, enjoined Epperson from filing any future claims in this Court without first obtaining leave of the Court and filing a motion to proceed in forma pauperis in compliance with 10 Del. C. § 8803. (3) Epperson fi led his current request seeking leave to appeal from the Superior Court’s denial of his twentieth postconviction motion. Epperson contends that his twentieth petition, which challenged the legality of the indictment against him, raises a constitutional is sue that has never

bee n addressed before by any court and is not procedurally barred. (4) Having conducted a preliminary review of Epperson’s appeal from the Superior Court’s August 21, 2014 order, we conclude that his appeal is not approved for filing

. This is Epperson’s twentieth Rule 61 petition. We have now invested considerable time detailing our reasons why his previous petitions were procedurally barred. We will not continue to invest scarce judicial resources to address his untimely and repetiti ve claims. We encourage Epperson to be mindful of Rule 61(j) before filing any further frivolous petitions in the Superior Court.3 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the Epperson’s appeal papers are STRICKEN and this matter is SUMMARILY DISMISSED.

B Y THE COURT:

/s/ Karen L. Valihura Justice
# C_2019424EN.01000401.xml

| 17.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 424/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 424/4

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

16 December 2019

(2019/C 424/04)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1146 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 121,97 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4731 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,83415 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,4213 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0953 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 136,80 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 10,0280 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,483 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 329,01 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2657 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,7791 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 6,5190 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6177 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4621 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,6856 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6859 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5096 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 304,67 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 16,1305 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,8025 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,4401 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 609,97 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,6167 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 56,421 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 69,8317 |
| THB | Thai baht | 33,689 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 4,5491 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 21,2022 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 79,1063 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1146

JPY

Japanese yen

121,97

DKK

Danish krone

7,4731

GBP

Pound sterling

0,83415

SEK

Swedish krona

10,4213

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0953

ISK

Iceland króna

136,80

NOK

Norwegian krone

10,0280

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,483

HUF

Hungarian forint

329,01

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2657

RON

Romanian leu

4,7791

TRY

Turkish lira

6,5190

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6177

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4621

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,6856

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6859

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5096

KRW

South Korean won

1 304,67

ZAR

South African rand

16,1305

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,8025

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,4401

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 609,97

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,6167

PHP

Philippine peso

56,421

RUB

Russian rouble

69,8317

THB

Thai baht

33,689

BRL

Brazilian real

4,5491

MXN

Mexican peso

21,2022

INR

Indian rupee

79,1063

---

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

---
# C_2018133EN.01002001.xml

| 16.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 133/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 133/20

---

New national side of euro coins intended for circulation

(2018/C 133/04)

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
  : The Vatican City State

Issuing country

Subject of commemoration
  : European Year of Cultural Heritage — The Laocoön group

Subject of commemoration

Description of the design
  : The design features the Statue of Laocoön and His Sons, also called the Laocoön Group, a fundamental work of the world sculpture, foundational for the Vatican Museums. At the center bottom, the inscription of the issuing country ‘Città del VATICANO’. From left to right, in semi-circle, the inscription ‘ANNO EUROPEO DEL PATRIMONIO CULTURALE’. At the top right the year of issuance ‘2018’ and the mintmark ‘R’. At the bottom right the name of the artist ‘D. LONGO’.

Description of the design

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

Number of coins to be issued
  :

Number of coins to be issued

Date of issue
  :

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

---
Order entered November 3 , 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 13

- 01416

- CR
ALEXANDER ROBERSON, Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 1

Dallas County, Texas Trial C ourt Cause No. F12

- 58374

- H



### O RDER

The Court has before it appellant’s “response” to this Court’s letter informing appellant
that his brief is overdue. We will treat it as a motion to extend time to file his brief. In the motion, counsel states that on J uly 24, 2014, this Court ordered the court reporter to file a supplemental record containing two missing exhibits and that counsel has been checking the website and has not seen that the exhibits were filed. The exhibits that were ordered on July 24,
2014 are State’s Exhibit nos. 1 and 10. Those exhibits were filed on July 24, 2014 and are identified on the Court’s case management system as “Exhibits filed.”
We GRANT appellant’s October 20, 2014 extension request and ORDER appellant to
file his brief wit hin THIRTY DAYS of the date of this order.
We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to counsel for all parties.
/s/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000714256
<NAME> MB SOFTWARE
<CURRENCY> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          196653
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   321965
<ALLOWANCES>                                     33487
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                538501
<PP&E>                                           63349
<DEPRECIATION>                                  213678
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1864687
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           831178
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      67885
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                    (290299)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1864687
<SALES>                                        2673426
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               2986908
<CGS>                                          2170882
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  2170882
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               1947488
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               72817
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 309196
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 226134
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    395330
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .01
        


</TABLE>
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 99-31077

Summary Calendar

_____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

TERENCE BROWN, also known

as Terance G. Brown,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Middle District of Louisiana

USDC No. 99-CR-39-ALL-C

_________________________________________________________________

July 13, 2000

Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Terence Brown has appealed the sentence imposed by the

district court following his guilty plea conviction for unlawful

possession of a firearm. 

Brown asserts that the upward departure was improperly based

on his arrest record and that the district court improperly

considered prior convictions that were more than fifteen years old.

See U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(e). A district court’s decision to depart
2

from the sentencing guidelines is generally reviewed for abuse of

discretion. United States v. Ashburn, 38 F.3d 803, 807 (5th Cir.

1994)(en banc).

In its reasons for judgment, the district court made it clear

that it looked not at the mere fact of prior arrests, but, rather,

that it looked to the violent nature and frequency of Brown’s prior

criminal conduct. In determining whether an upward departure is

warranted, a district court may consider older prior convictions

whose sentences are evidence of similar, or serious dissimilar,

criminal conduct. U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2, comment. (n.8); see also

United States v. Harrington, 114 F.3d 517, 520 (5th Cir. 1997);

United States v. Pennington, 9 F.3d 1116, 1118 (5th Cir. 1993).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in considering

Brown’s older prior convictions and the violent nature of Brown’s

prior criminal conduct in deciding to depart upward from the

sentencing guideline.

Brown also asserts that the district court erred in upwardly

departing from the applicable sentencing guideline range because it

did not expressly state that it had considered intermediate

criminal category histories. Because Brown failed to raise this

argument below, it is reviewed for plain error. See United States

v. Alford, 142 F.3d 825, 830 (5th Cir. 1998). 
3

The district court based its upward departure on the grounds

that Brown’s criminal history category did not adequately reflect

the seriousness or violent nature of Brown’s past criminal conduct.

The district court’s reasons for departure were acceptable and

adequately explained. See U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3; United States v.

Chappell, 6 F.3d 1095, 1102 (5th Cir. 1993); Ashburn, 38 F.3d at

809.

In the light of the foregoing, the district court did not err

in upwardly departing from the applicable guideline range.

Ashburn, 38 F.3d at 807. The judgment of the district court is

A F F I R M E D.
Ninth Amendment to Savings and Investment Plan


 Exhibit 10.8i 
 EIGHTH AMENDMENT 
 OF 
 FMC TECHNOLOGIES, INC. SAVINGS AND INVESTMENT PLAN 
 WHEREAS, FMC Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) maintains the FMC Technologies, Inc. Savings and Investment Plan (the
“Plan”); 
 WHEREAS, the Company now deems it necessary and desirable to amend the Plan to comply with the
final Treasury regulations under Code Section 415; and 
 WHEREAS, this Eighth Amendment shall supersede the
provisions of the Plan to the extent those provisions are inconsistent with the provisions of the amendment;  
 NOW,
THEREFORE, by virtue of the authority reserved to the Company by Section 12.1 of the Plan, the Plan is hereby amended as follows: 
  

	 	•	 	 Effective for limitation years beginning on or after July 1, 2007, the definition of Compensation set forth in Article I is hereby amended to add
the following paragraph to the end thereto to read as follows: 


 Notwithstanding the
preceding to the contrary, for purposes of determining compensation for compliance with the Code Section 415 annual addition limitation, effective for limitation years beginning on or after July 1, 2007, the determination of “415
Compensation” shall include for a given limitation year payments made by the later of 2 and  1/2 months after severance from employment or the end of the limitation year that includes the date of severance from employment if, absent a severance from employment, such payments
would have been paid to the Participant while the Participant continued in employment with the Company or a Participating Employer and are regular compensation for services during the Participant’s regular working hours, compensation for
services outside the Participant’s regular working hours (such as overtime or shift differential) commissions, bonuses, or other similar compensation. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this amendment to be executed by a duly authorized representative this
10TH day of March, 2009. 
  

			
	FMC Technologies, Inc.
		
	By:	 	 



	Its:	 	 Vice President - Administration
Exhibit 32.1  Certification Required by Rule 13a-14(b) and
18 U.S.C. Section 1350 (as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)  I, Rene Lerer, as Chief
Executive Officer of Magellan Health Services, Inc (the Company), certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 (as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), that to my knowledge:  (1)the
accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2009 (the Report), fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and  (2)the information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  /s/ RENE LERERRene LererDate: April 30, 2009
  Chief Executive Officer  1
<PAGE>
                                                                    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 Camco Financial Corporation
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Mark A. Severson, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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/Mark A. Severson
--------------------------------------------
Mark A. Severson, Chief Financial Officer

August 11, 2003


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Bennett Excavators Corp., Respondent, v. Lasker-Goldman Corporation, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant, and Standard Accident Insurance Company, Third-Party Defendant-Respondent. Standard Accident Insurance Company, Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent, v. James V. Bennett et al., Third-Party Defendants-Respondents.

In an action by a subcontractor, Bennett Excavators Corp., against the general contractor, LaskerGoldman Corporation, to recover for work, labor and services, and for materials furnished (first cause of action), and to recover damages for breach of contract (second cause of action), in which: (a) the defendant Lasker corporation interposed a counterclaim against plaintiff to recover damages for breach of contract and a third-party complaint against Standard Accident Insurance Company, based upon its liability under a performance bond; and (b) the said insurer Standard interposed a cross claim against the plaintiff subcontractor, together with a third-party complaint against its two individual officers based on their liability under an indemnitj'' agreement, the general contractor, defendant Lasker corporation, appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered September 27, 1963 after trial, upon a jury’s verdict in the plaintiff’s favor on both causes of action and dismissing the counterclaim and both third-party complaints. Judgment reversed on the law and the facts; complaint dismissed on the law; action severed as to the counterclaim, the cross claim and the third-party complaints; and new trial granted as to all the issues raised by the pleadings in response to such counterclaim, cross claim and third-party complaints, with costs to abide the event. We find no evidence in the record to support the jury’s verdict. In the interests of justice a new trial is granted with respect to the counterclaim, the cross claim and the third-party claims. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.
27.305-4 Protection of invention disclosures. ( a ) The Government will, to the extent authorized by 35 U.S.C. 205, withhold from disclosure to the public any invention disclosures reported under the patent rights clauses of 52.227-11 or 52.227-13 for a reasonable time in order for patent applications to be filed. The Government will follow the policy in 27.302(j) regarding protection of confidentiality.
( b ) The Government should also use reasonable efforts to withhold from disclosure to the public for a reasonable time other information disclosing a subject invention. This information includes any data delivered pursuant to contract requirements provided that the contractor notifies the agency as to the identity of the data and the subject invention to which it relates at the time of delivery of the data. This notification shall be provided to both the contracting officer and to any patent representative to which the invention is reported, if other than the contracting officer.
( c ) For more information on protection of invention disclosures, also see 37 CFR 401.13.
Exhibit 32.1


                      Statement of Chief Executive Officer
         Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code


Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code, the undersigned,
Denis A.  Krusos,  the  Chairman  of the Board and Chief  Executive  Officer  of
CopyTele, Inc., hereby certifies that:

1.       The Company's Form 10-K Annual Report for the fiscal year ended October
         31, 2005 (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 results of operations of
         the Company.


                                            /s/ Denis A. Krusos
                                            -------------------------
                                            Denis A. Krusos
                                            Chairman of the Board and
January 31, 2006                            Chief Executive Officer
# C_2020433EN.01000101.xml

| 14.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 433/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 433/1

---

Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

(2020/C 433/01)

Last publication

OJ C 423, 7.12.2020

Past publications

OJ C 414, 30.11.2020

OJ C 399, 23.11.2020

OJ C 390, 16.11.2020

OJ C 378, 9.11.2020

OJ C 371, 3.11.2020

OJ C 359, 26.10.2020

These texts are available on:

EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

---