alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## State of N ew York Su p reme Cou rt, A p p ellate Division Third J u dicial Dep artment Decided and Entered: July 2, 2015 106660

________________________________ THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v MEMORANDUM AND ORDER MICHAEL COXON, Appellant.

________________________________ Calendar Date: June 4, 2015 Before: Garry, J.P., Rose, Devine and Clark, JJ.

__________ Theodore J. Stein, Woodstock, for appellant. Paul Czajka, District Attorney, Hudson (James A. Carlucci of counsel), for respondent.

__________ Devine, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Columbia County (Nichols, J.), rendered November 12, 2013, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of failure to register as a sex offender. After defendant neglected to register his change of address within 10 days of moving, he was charged in a felony complaint with failure to register as a sex offender. Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, defendant waived indictment and pleaded guilty to a superior court information charging him with failure to register as a sex offender and waived his right to appeal. County Court agreed to sentence defendant to no more than one year in jail, but warned him that a greater sentence was possible if he failed to appear for sentencing. Thereafter,-2- 106660

defendant failed to appear for sentencing, prompting County Court to sentence defendant in abstentia to a prison term of 1 to 3 years. Defendant appeals. We are unpersuaded by defendant's contention that County Court did not acquire jurisdiction to conduct the plea hearing. Although defendant points to the fact that the record does not indicate, among other things, that the matter was held over for grand jury action, "the transfer of [his] case to County Court is evidence that he was held by a local criminal court for grand jury action, and a mere void in the record is insufficient to establish his claim" that the statutory requirements were not met (People v Simmons, 110 AD3d 1371, 1372 [2013] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]). Additionally, the record establishes that defendant not only waived a preliminary hearing, but signed a waiver of indictment in open court, which was consented to by the People, whereupon County Court executed an order approving waiver of indictment. Given the presumption of regularity accorded to judicial proceedings and the lack of any evidence by defendant to rebut that presumption, we find the waiver of indictment to be valid (see People v Simmons, 110 AD3d at 1372-1373; People v Hauenstein, 106 AD3d 1339, 1339-1340 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1042 [2013]). Defendant's contention that the enhanced sentence is harsh and excessive is not barred under the terms of his appeal waiver; nevertheless, we find it to be without merit. Garry, J.P., Rose and Clark, JJ., concur.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger Clerk of the Court
§ 1780.74 Contracts awarded prior to applications. Owners awarding construction or other procurement contracts prior to filing an application, must provide evidence that is satisfactory to the Agency that the contract was entered into without intent to circumvent the requirements of Agency regulations. ( a ) *Modifications.* The contract shall be modified to conform with the provisions of this part. Where this is not possible, modifications will be made to the extent practicable and, as a minimum, the contract must comply with all State and local laws and regulations as well as statutory requirements and executive orders related to the Agency financing. When all construction is complete and it is impracticable to modify the contracts, the owner must provide the certification required by paragraph (c) of this section.
( b ) *Consultant's certification.* Provide a certification by an engineer, licensed in the State where the facility is constructed, that any construction performed complies fully with the plans and specifications.
( c ) *Owner's certification.* Provide a certification by the owner that the contractor has complied with applicable statutory and executive requirements related to Agency financing for construction already performed.
#### § 1744.69 [Reserved]
**EXHIBIT 32.1****CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**In connection with the annual report on Form 10-K of UTi Worldwide Inc. (the Company) for the yearended January 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (theReport), I, Roger I. MacFarlane, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, to the best of my knowledge, that: 1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange 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.         /s/ Roger I. MacFarlane       Name: Roger I. MacFarlane  Title: Chief Executive OfficerDate: April 2, 2007
July 30, 1998

Nicholas Fund, Inc.
700 North Water Street
Milwaukee, WI 53202

Gentlemen:

      We have acted as counsel to Nicholas Fund, Inc. ("Fund"), a
corporation organized under the laws of the State of Maryland, in
connection  with  the preparation and filing  of  a  registration
statement  on  Form  N-1A  and amendments thereto  ("Registration
Statement"), relating to the registration of the common stock  of
the  Fund  ("Common Stock") under the Securities Act of 1933,  as
amended.

      We  have reviewed the Articles of Incorporation and By-Laws
of the Fund and the Registration Statement; we have also reviewed
such  corporate  records and other documents and have  made  such
examinations of law as we have deemed necessary for  purposes  of
the  opinion  hereinafter  expressed.  We  have  assumed  without
independent  verification the genuineness of signatures  and  the
conformity  with originals of all documents submitted  to  us  as
copies.  Based upon the foregoing, we are of the opinion that:

           1.  The Fund is a corporation, duly organized and
     legally  existing  under  the  laws  of  the  State  of
     Maryland.

           2.  The  Fund  is authorized to issue up  to  two
     hundred  million (200,000,000) shares of Common  Stock,
     par  value  $.50  per  share,  including  those  shares
     currently issued and outstanding.

           3.  The  shares of Common Stock to be offered for
     sale  pursuant to the Registration Statement have  been
     duly  authorized and, upon the effectiveness  of  Post-
     Effective   Amendment  No.  45  to   the   Registration
     Statement  and compliance with applicable  federal  and
     state  securities  laws  and  regulations,  when  sold,
     issued (within the limits authorized under the Articles
     of   Incorporation  of  the  Fund)  and  paid  for   as
     contemplated in the Registration Statement, such shares
     will  have been validly and legally issued, fully  paid
     and non-assessable.

           4.  Post-Effective   Amendment   No. 45   to  the
     Registration Statement does not contain any disclosures
     which  would  render it ineligible to become  effective
     under Rule 485(b) under the Securities Act of 1933.

      We  consent to the filing of this opinion as an exhibit  to
the  Registration Statement and to the references to  us  in  the
prospectus  comprising Part A and elsewhere in  the  Registration
Statement.

                                   Sincerely yours,



                                   /s/ DAVIS & KUELTHAU, S.C.
                               -----------------------------------
                                       DAVIS & KUELTHAU, S.C.
#### Board of Education of the Town of Stratford et al. *v.*Arthur C. Dritenbas, Jr., et al.

*Sturges N. Laros*and *Lawrence W. Kanaga,*for the appellees (plaintiffs).

*Edward F. Stodolink,*for the appellants (named defendant et al.).

*Robert M. Davidson*and *Samuel M. Chambliss,*for the appellants (intervening defendants—the electors and taxpayers of the town of Stratford).

Argued October 5

decided October *5,*1971

The motion by the plaintiffs dated June 17, 1971, to dismiss the appeal from the Superior Court in Fairfield County is denied.

The motion by the plaintiffs dated June 18, 1971, to dismiss the appeal from the Superior Court in Fairfield County is denied.
###### Editorial Note on Part 1944

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1944 appear at 80 FR 9885, Feb. 24, 2015.

#### §§ 1944.428-1944.449 [Reserved]
EXHIBIT 12.1

<TABLE>
 PHOSPHATE RESOURCE PARTNERS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
 Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
(In millions)
<CAPTION>
                                        Years Ended December 31,
                                        ------------------------
                            1998       1997      1996      1995     1994
                            ----       ----      ----      ----     ----
<S>                        <C>       <C>        <C>       <C>      <C>
Income (loss) from 
 continuing operations     $ 32.3    $(340.6)   $177.3    $161.4   $ 84.0
Add:
Interest expense             40.2       35.7      33.7      31.5     33.5
Rental expense factor(a)      2.8        2.6       4.0       4.0      3.9
                           ------    -------    ------    ------   ------
                           $ 75.3    $(302.3)   $215.0    $196.9   $121.4  
                           ======    =======    ======    ======   ======

Interest expense           $ 40.2    $  35.7    $ 33.7    $ 31.5   $ 33.5
Capitalized interest            -          -         -         -        -
Rental expense factor(a)      2.8        2.6       4.0       4.0      3.9
                           ------    -------    ------    ------   ------
Fixed charges              $ 43.0    $  38.3    $ 37.7    $ 35.5   $ 37.4
                           ======    =======    ======    ======   ======
Ratio of earnings 
 to fixed charges(b)          1.8          c       5.7       5.5      3.2

(a)  Portion of rent deemed representative of an interest factor.
(b) For purposes of this calculation, earnings are income from continuing 
    operations before extraordinary charges and fixed charges.  Fixed charges 
    consist of interest and that portion of rent deemed representative of 
    interest.
(c) Earnings were inadequate to cover fixed charges by $340.6 million.

</TABLE>
#### Mills *et al. vs.*Sale.

1ÍEBT. Case *TT.*

Error to the Jefferson Circuit; Pirtle, Judge.

*Suit against heirs. Declaration.*

In suit against heirs, after juilgmentthas been obtained again.-t the ex-cculor or administrator, the declaration tnu't shew that proper steps have been taken against the executor or administrator, and that they have resulied “in a judgment of rc- ' cord or a return of the proper officer,” manifesting a want of property of the deceased in the hands of his personal representative to satisfy the debt.

April 24.

Judge Ukderwood delivered

the opinion of the court.

The only question in this case is, did the circuit court err in sustaining the demurrer to the declaration? The appellants instituted an action of debt against Sale and others, as heirs of Charles Scoggin, for the purpose of collecting from them the amount of a judgment which the declaration avers had been obtained against the said Charles in his life time. After setting forth the judgment against Scoggin, the declaration avers that it was “revived against Marius Hansbrough, the administrator, and yet remains unpaid and unsatisfied. Nevertheless, said defendants, or either of them, the said debt, or any part thereof, to the said plaintiff have not paid, &c.”

The proceedings, on the part of the appellants, were evidently intended to subject the heirs to the payment of the debt of their ancestor, under the provisions of the act of 1819, (1 Dig, *652.)*It is our opinion that the averments of the declaration are not sufficient to bring the case of the appellants within the operation of that statute. The statute does not allow the institution of suit against the heirs, after judgment has been obtained against the executor or administrator, upon the contract of the ancester, unless “it shall appear by a judgment of record, or by the return of the proper officer, that there is not property of the deceased in the hands of the executor or administrator to satisfy the judgment.” '1 he declaration in this case does not-aver that there was no property of the deceased .inr *255the bands of Hansbrough, the administrator, to satisfy the judgment; and that such appeared to he the fact from a judgment of record, or by the return of the proper officer. - The statement that the judgment against the administrator remained' “unpaid and unsatisfied,” is not sufficient. That may be true, and yet there may be property enough in the hands of the administrator with which to pay it. No execution may have been taken out against him Before the heirs can be rendered liable, the declaration must shew that-proper steps have been taken against the executor or administrator, and that they have resulted “in a judgment of record or a return of the proper officer,” manifesting a want of property of the deceased in the hands of his personal representative to satisfy the debt. This has not been done. The judgment of the court upon the demurrer, is therefore affirmed with costs.

Denny, for appellant.
#### § 1530.100 General statement.

This part provides regulations for the Refined Sugar Re-Export Program, the Sugar Containing Products Re-Export Program, and the Polyhydric Alcohol Program. Under these provisions, refiners may enter raw sugar unrestricted by the quantitative limit established for the raw sugar tariff-rate quota or the requirements of certificates of quota eligibility provided for in 15 CFR part 2011, as long as licensees under the programs export an equivalent quantity of refined sugar, either as refined sugar or as an ingredient in sugar containing products, or use the refined sugar in the production of certain polyhydric alcohols.
EXHIBIT 10.21
        DESCRIPTION OF OUTSIDE DIRECTOR FEE ARRANGEMENTS

                         Directors who are not executive officers of the Company or the Bank (“Outside Directors”) receive an annual retainer of $30,000 from the Bank, with no additional retainer from the Company. The Chair of the Audit Committee receives an additional annual retainer of $10,000 and the Chair of the Compensation Committee receives an additional annual retainer of $5,000. Outside Directors also receive meeting fees of $1,500 for each Board or Bank Board meeting attended, $1,000 for each Audit Committee or Compensation Committee attended, and $750 for each other committee meeting attended, whether or not they are members of such committee. However, where the Board of Directors and the Bank Board meet on the same day, directors receive only a single board meeting fee for such meetings. Similarly, d

irectors receive only a single committee meeting fee where identically constituted committees of the Board of Directors and Bank Board meet on the same day. 

                         Outside Directors who are members of the Loan Committee also receive a fee from the Bank for conducting on-site inspections of proposed real estate collateral for certain loans in excess of $700,000 and certain other loans in excess of $500,000. For each day that a director conducts such inspections, the director receives a fee of $400 for the first property inspected and $200 for each additional property inspected on that day.



	

        101
### -78.5 -78.0 -77.5 -77.0 -76.5 -76.0 -75.5

38.5 39.0 39.5 40.0



## ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



## ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 

### 500 1000 1500 100 18 12 06 00 07/31 

## NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

# Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 31 Jul 06

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.90 N 76.65 WMeters AGL 

## ★ ■ ■ ■ ■



## ★ ■ ■ ■ ■ 

## ★ ● ●



## ★ ● ● ● ●
118 STAT. 1016 PUBLIC LAW 108–288—AUG. 6, 2004

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 1572:

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 108–216 (Comm. on Transportation and Infrastructure).

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD:

Vol. 149 (2003): Sept. 3, considered and passed House.

Vol. 150 (2004): July 19, considered and passed Senate.

Æ

Public Law 108–288

108th Congress

An Act

To designate the United States courthouse located at 100 North Palafox Street

in Pensacola, Florida, as the ‘‘Winston E. Arnow United States Courthouse’’.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

The United States courthouse located at 100 North Palafox

Street in Pensacola, Florida, shall be known and designated as

the ‘‘Winston E. Arnow United States Courthouse’’.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper,

or other record of the United States to the United States courthouse

referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the

‘‘Winston E. Arnow United States Courthouse’’.

Approved August 6, 2004.

Aug. 6, 2004

[H.R. 1572]
Exhibit 10


Exhibit 10.19



CONTINENTAL AIRLINES, INC.



Non-Employee Director Compensation Summary







Effective February 28, 2005, members of our board of directors who are not full-time employees of Continental Airlines, Inc. receive the following compensation: 







	$24,500 per year, plus an additional $25,000 for members of the Audit Committee ($40,000 for the chairperson of the Audit Committee); 










	$1,400 ($2,100 for the chairperson) for each board and committee meeting physically attended (other than an Audit Committee meeting);










	$2,000 ($3,000 for the chairperson) for each Audit Committee meeting physically attended;










	$700 for each board meeting attended by telephone; 










	$350 for each committee meeting attended by telephone ($500 for each Audit Committee meeting attended by telephone); 










	stock options to purchase 5,000 shares of common stock at the grant date fair market value following each annual stockholders meeting and upon election to the board if they are first elected to the board other than at an annual stockholders meeting; and 










	lifetime flight benefits, comprised of space-available personal and family flight passes, a travel card permitting positive space travel by the director, the director's family and certain other individuals (which is taxable to the director, subject to the reimbursement of certain of such taxes by the company), frequent flyer cards and airport lounge cards ("Flight Benefits").






As previously reported, the non-employee members of the Board of Directors have elected to forego their annual grant of 5,000 stock options that would otherwise be awarded in connection with their re-election to the board at the Company's 2005 Annual Meeting of Shareholders to be held on June 16, 2005. 



In addition, non-employee directors who conduct Continental business in their capacities as directors on Continental's behalf at the request of the board or the Chairman of the Board are paid (i) for telephone participation in board and committee meetings as if they were physically present, if their conducting that business makes it impractical for them to attend the meeting in person, and (ii) $3,000 per day spent outside the United States while conducting that business. 



 All directors, including those who are full-time employees who serve as directors, receive reimbursement of expenses incurred in attending meetings.  Directors also receive travel privileges on some other airlines through arrangements entered into between Continental and such airlines.
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**

MEMORANDUM OPINION

N o. 04

- 13

- 00255

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF A .R.H.
, a Child
From the 285th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2012

- EM

- 506396 Honorable Jim Rausc h, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM
Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice Marialyn Barnard, Justice Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: June 5, 2013

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION
On May 1 , 201 3 , this court ordered appellant to provide written proof to this court no later

than May 13, 2013 that either (1) the clerk’s fee has been paid or arrangements have been made to
pay the clerk’s fee; or (2) appellant is entitled to appeal without paying the clerk’s fee. Our order
informed appellant that if s he failed to provide such written proof within the time provided, this
appeal would be dismissed for want of prosecution. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.8(a). Appellant did not
respond; therefore, th is appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P.
38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b).

PER CURIAM
cc: Hon. Steve L. Dobrescu, District Judge Kenneth J. Schiro Attorney General/Carson City White Pine County District Attorney Attorney General/Ely White Pine County Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA
(0) 1947A 2
## IN THE COUR T OF CRIM INA L A PPEA LS

OF TEXA S

NO. WR-92, 488-01

EX P ART E K EN NE TH EUGE NE RI CE

, Appl icant

ON AP P LI CAT I ON F OR A WRIT OF HAB EA S CORP US

CAUSE NO. F 45892-B

I N THE 18 DI STRI CT COURT F ROM JOHNSON COUNT Y

T H

P er cur iam

. Year

y, J. f il ed a diss enti ng opin ion joi ned by Sl aught er , J.

O P I N I O N

Ap p l i c a nt was co n

v i ct ed o f o n l i

n e s o l i ci t at i o n o f a m

i n o r an d s en

t en ced t o t en y ears ’

i m pri s o n m en t i n co un t o n e o f t h i s caus e. He f

i l ed t h i s appl i cat i o n f

o r a wri t o f h ab eas co rpus i n t h e

co un t y o f co n v i ct i o n

, an d t h e di s t ri ct cl erk f o rwarded i

t t o t h i s Co urt

. See T E X

. C O D E C R I M

. P R O C

.

art

. 11. 07.

A ppl i can t co n t en ds t h a t t he s t a t ut e un der wh i ch h e was co n v i ct ed was f

o un d t o b e

un co n s t i t ut i o n al

. A

ppl i can t i s en t i t l ed t o rel i ef

. T h i s Co urt

, i

n E x par te Lo

, h el d un co n s t i

t ut i o n al t h e

o n l i n e s o l i ci t at i o n o f a m

i n o r s t at ut e f

o r wh i ch A

ppl i can t was co n v i ct ed. E x parte Lo

, 424 S. W

. 3d

10 (T ex

. Cri

m

. A pp. 2013). A

ppl i can t f i l ed t h i s h ab eas appl i cat i o n b as ed o n t h e Lo deci s i o n an d as ks2

t h at h i s co n

v i ct i o n b e s et as i de. T h e St at e reco m m en ds t h at rel i ef b e gran

t ed i n t h i s caus e. W e agree.

Re l i ef i s gran

t ed. T h e j udgm

en t i n co un t o n e o f Ca

us e No

. F 45892 i

n t h e 18 Di s t ri ct Co urt

th

o f J o h n s o n Co un

t y i s s et as i de an d A

ppl i can t i s rem an ded t o t h e cus t o dy o f t h e Sh eri f f o f J o h n s o n

Co un t y t o an s wer t h e ch arges as s et o ut i n t h e i n di ct m en t s o t h at t h e i

n di ct m en t m ay b e di s m

i s s ed i n

acc o rdan ce wi

t h t h i s Co urt ’ s o pi

n i o n s i n E x par te Lo, E

x par te F our nier an d E

x par te Dow

den 473

S. W

. 3d 789 (T ex

. Cri

m

. A pp. 2015)

. T h e t ri al co urt s h al l i s s ue an y n ece s s ary b en ch warran t wi t h i n

10 day s af t er t h e m an dat e o f t h i s Co urt i s s ues

.

Co pi es o f t h i s o pi

n i o n s h al l b e s en

t t o t h e T ex as Depa

rt m en t o f Cri m i n al J us t i ce–C o rr ect i o n al

In s t i t ut i o n s Di v i s i o n an d Pardo n s an d Paro l es Di v i s i o n

.

Del i v ered: A pri l 14, 2021

Do n o t pub l i s h