alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 9 A0 86 6 . ERNEST MORTON v . ANGELA MORTON.

In M arch 2 01 8 , t h e t ri al co u rt en tered a ju d g m en t an d fi nal d ecree o f d i v o rce

i n th i s cas e. Two m o n t h s l at er, t h e t ri al co u rt en t ered a “ Th ri ft Sav in g s Pl an

R e t i r e m en t Ben efi t s Co u rt Ord er,” award i n g An g el a Mo rt o n a p o rt i o n o f Ern es t

M o rt o n ’ s ret i rem en t b en efi t s

. Ern es t th ereaft er fi l ed a m o t i o n t o s et as i d e th e co urt ’ s

o rd er p u rs u an t t o OCGA § 9 -1 1-6 0 (d ). Th e tri al co u rt d en i ed th e m o t i o n , an d Ern es t

fi led th i s ap p eal . W e, h o wev er, l ack ju ri s d i ct io n

. An ap p eal fro m an o rd er d en y i n g a m o t i o n t o s e t a s i d e a ju d g m en t u n d er

OCGA § 9 -1 1 -6 0 (d ) m

u st b e m ad e b y ap p l i cat i o n fo r d i s cret i o n ary rev i ew. See

OCGA § 5 -6 -3 5 (a) (8 ); Ji m El l i s At l a n t a

, In c. v. Ad a ms o n , 2 8 3 Ga. Ap p

. 1 1 6

, 1 1 6

(6 4 0 SE2 d 6 8 8 ) (2 0 0 6 ). M o reo v er, “ [a] p peal s fro m ju d gm en t s o r o rd ers i n d i v o rce,

al i m o n y , a n d o t h er d o m es t ic rel at i o n s cas es ” m u s t al s o b e m ad e b y ap p li cat i o n fo r

d i s cret i o n ary

ap peal . OCGA § 5 -6 -3 5 (a) (2 ). “ [C] o m p li an ce wi t h t h e d i s cret i o n ary

ap p eal s p ro ced u re i s ju ri s d i ct i o n al .” Fa b e v. Fl o yd

, 1 9 9 G a. Ap p

. 3 22

, 33 2 (1 ) (4 0 5

SE2 d 26 5 ) (1 9 9 1 ). Ern es t M ort o n ’ s fai l u re t o fi le a di s cret io n ary ap p l i cat i o n t hu s

d ep ri v es t h i s Co urt o f ju ri sd i ct i o n o v er t h i s ap peal , wh i ch i s h ereb y DISM ISSED.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O f f i c e

, A t la n t a

,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r ti fy t h a t t h e a b o v e is a tr u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. December 17, 2018

12/17/2018
# C_2014409EN.01004802.xml

| 17.11.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 409/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.11.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 409/48

---

Action brought on 14 August 2014 — Bionorica v Commission

(Case T-619/14)

2014/C 409/69

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Bionorica SE (Neumarkt, Germany) (represented by: M. Weidner, T. Guttau and N. Hußmann, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | declare that the defendant, in infringement of Article 13(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods (OJ 2006 L 404, p. 9), failed to entrust the European Food Safety Authority with the scientific assessment of health claims relating to plant materials for the drafting of a Community list of permitted claims for plant materials in accordance with Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, and all the necessary conditions for the application of those claims, |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the defendant, in infringement of Article 13(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods (OJ 2006 L 404, p. 9), failed to entrust the European Food Safety Authority with the scientific assessment of health claims relating to plant materials for the drafting of a Community list of permitted claims for plant materials in accordance with Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, and all the necessary conditions for the application of those claims,

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law.

Plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 13(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 (1)

1

According to the applicant, the Commission’s failure to act infringes Article 13(3) of Regulation No 1924/2006, which provides that 31 January 2010 is a binding deadline for transposition. The applicant claims that the Commission failed to comply with that deadline. In that regard, the applicant claims that the Commission is not entitled to construe the scientific assessment of health claims relating to plant materials as not being subject to a deadline. The defendant’s failure to act, in the opinion of the applicant, undermines a uniform application of law throughout the European Union and is not compatible with the basic principle of the regulation to create uniform European rules.

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods (OJ 2006 L 404, p. 9).

1

---
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

Exhibit 4.11.1  


 
 

List of Subordinated Notes
  Tranche "B" or "C "dated February 15, 2000    
  



	Type "B"	 	 
	 	

Chester B. Eales	
 	

22,000
	 	

Gene Johnson Trustee for the Ivan & Gladys Quass Living Trust	
 	

20,000
	 	

William Joseph Miller, Jr.	
 	

50,000
	 	

Delores E. Schluchter	
 	

10,000
	

Type "C"	
 	

 
	 	

Steve & Dawn Anderson	
 	

20,000
	 	

Mr. or Mrs. Dale E. Orr	
 	

15,000











QuickLinks


List of Subordinated Notes Tranche "B" or "C "dated February 15, 2000
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7998 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7998

 To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to require institutions of 
  higher education to track and record additional information on hate 
                    crimes, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 15, 2024

Mr. Espaillat introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                Committee on Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to require institutions of 
  higher education to track and record additional information on hate 
                    crimes, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Combating Hate Across Campus Act''.

SEC. 2. DISCLOSURE OF CAMPUS SECURITY POLICY AND CAMPUS CRIME 
              STATISTICS.

    Section 485(f)(1)(F)(ii) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 
U.S.C. 1092(f)(1)(F)(ii)) is amended by striking ``which data shall be 
collected and reported according to category of prejudice; and'' and 
inserting ``which data shall--
                                    ``(I) be collected and reported 
                                according to category of prejudice; and
                                    ``(II) disaggregated by subcategory 
                                based on the identity of the targeted 
                                individual or group, as listed in the 
                                most recently available Hate Crime Data 
                                Collection Guidelines and Training 
                                Manual published by the Criminal 
                                Justice Information Services Division 
                                of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; 
                                and''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 10.75


Annual Base Salaries of Named
Executive Officers


On February 20, 2007, the Compensation Committee
approved the 2007 annual base salaries of Messrs. Staff, Jacobs, Landrum,
Jines and Langdon, each of whom is a named executive officer.


	
   

  	
   

  	
  2006 Base Salary

  	
   

  	
  2007 Base Salary 

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  (effective

  	
   

  	
  (effective

  	
   

  
	
  Named Executive Officer

  	
   

  	
  April 1, 2006)

  	
   

  	
  April 1, 2007)

  	
   

  
	
  Joel V. Staff

  Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  1,050,000

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  1,050,000

  	
   

  
	
  Mark M. Jacobs

  Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

  	
   

  	
  629,000

  	
   

  	
  629,000

  	
   

  
	
  Brian Landrum

  Executive Vice President, Operations

  	
   

  	
  565,000

  	
   

  	
  625,000

  	
   

  
	
  Michael L. Jines

  Senior Vice President, General Counsel and

  Corporate Secretary

  	
   

  	
  386,000

  	
   

  	
  401,000

  	
   

  
	
  Jerry J. Langdon

  Executive Vice President, Public and Regulatory Affairs

  and Corporate Compliance Officer

  	
   

  	
  338,400

  	
   

  	
  348,000
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-50774 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus DAGOBERTO MARROQUIN-BORRALLO, also known as Efren Moran, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. MO-00-CR-168-ALL

-------------------- June 19, 2002 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Dagoberto Marroquin-Borrallo appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Marroquin-Borrallo complains that his sentence was improperly enhanced pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) based on his prior deportation following an aggravated felony conviction. Marroquin-Borrallo argues that the sentencing provision violates the Due Process Clause because it permitted the sentencing judgeNo. 01-50774 -2- to find, under a preponderance of the evidence standard, a fact which increased the statutory maximum sentence to which he otherwise would have been exposed. Marroquin-Borrallo thus contends that his sentence is invalid and argues that it should not exceed the two-year maximum term of imprisonment prescribed in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a).
In Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. Marroquin-Borrallo acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres , but asserts that the decision has been cast into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres

. See Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied , 531 U.S. 1202 (2001). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” Dabeit , 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks that the judgment of the district court be affirmed and that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
DISMISS and Opinion Filed May 2, 2017 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-17-00058-CV 

IN THE INTEREST OF E.A., A CHILD 

On Appeal from the 470th Judicial District Court 

Collin County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 470-04225-2016 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Chief Justice Wright, Justice Lang-Miers, and Justice Stoddart 

Opinion by Chief Justice Wright 

Appellant appeals from the trial court’s October 17, 2016 order granting a bill of review 

and vacating a divorce decree. After reviewing the clerk’s record, we questioned our jurisdiction 

over this appeal because there did not appear to be an appealable order. We instructed appellant 

to file, by March 3, 2017, a letter brief addressing our concern and cautioned her that failure to 

do so may result in dismissal of the appeal without further notice. As of today’s date, appellant 

has not responded. 

Generally, this Court has jurisdiction only over appeals from final judgements and certain 

interlocutory orders as permitted by statute. See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 

195 (Tex. 2001). A final judgment is one that disposes of all pending parties and claims. See id. 

An order on a petition for bill of review that sets aside a prior judgment but does not dispose of 

all the issues of the case on the merits is interlocutory in nature and not a final appealable 
 –2– 

judgment. See Kiefer v. Touris, 197 S.W.3d 300, 302 (Tex. 2006); Tesoro Petroleum v. Smith,

796 S.W.2d 705 (Tex. 1990) (per curiam). 

In the order, the trial court granted the bill of review and vacated the final decree of 

divorce without disposing of all the issues of the case on the merits. For this reason, the order is 

interlocutory and not appealable. See Kiefer, 197 S.W.3d at 302; Tesoro Petroleum, 796 S.W.2d 

at 705. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a). 

170058F.P05 

 

/Carolyn Wright/ 

CAROLYN WRIGHT 

CHIEF JUSTICE 
 –3– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

IN THE INTEREST OF E.A., A CHILD 

No. 05-17-00058-CV 

 On Appeal from the 470th Judicial District 

Court, Collin County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 470-04225-2016. 

Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Wright. 

Justices Lang-Miers and Stoddart 

participating. 

 In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED. 

 It is ORDERED that appellee Samuel Anyimadu recover his costs of this appeal from 

appellant Jacqueline Jones. 

Judgment entered May 2, 2017.
Exhibit 31.3



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

CLIPPER REALTY INC.

SECTION 302 OF SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, David Bistricer, certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the annual report on Form 10-K of Clipper Realty Inc.; and
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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







|Date: | May 1, 2017 | By: | /s/ David Bistricer    
|----- | ----------- | --- | -----------------------
|      |             |     | David Bistricer        
|      |             |     | Chief Executive Officer
## Honeywell International
Buffalo Research Laboratory 20 Peabody Street Buffalo, New York 14210
USA

Compliance with Good Laboratory Practice

Refrigerant concentration sensor calibrati on and Under Hood Engine Compartment

Measurements

I declare that the attached report constitutes a true and faithful account of the procedures adopted and the results obtained in the performance of this study.

Approved by:

Dr. Christopher J. Seeton Principal Engineer – 1234yf MAC Technology Leader Honeywell International

February 3 rd , 2012
#### § 1.411(d)-5 [Reserved]
August 11, 2016



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

DAVID RUIZ , Appellant

NO. 14

- 15

- 00285

- CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

________________________________ This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. Having considered the record, this Court holds that th ere was no error in the judgment. The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED

. We further order appellant pay all costs expended in the appeal. We further order this decision certified below for observance.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.3


                                SECOND AMENDMENT
                                     TO THE
                                  MICROAGE, INC
                       1995 ASSOCIATE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN


         Effective March 15, 1995, the stockholders of MicroAge, Inc. (the
"Company") approved the adoption of the MicroAge, Inc. 1995 Associate Stock
Purchase Plan (the "Plan"). By the First Amendment to the Plan, the Company
amended the Plan to make various technical changes. By this instrument, the
Company desires to amend the Plan to provide that the "Purchase Date" for shares
shall be the last business day of each Subscription Period rather than the fifth
business day following the last day of each Subscription Period.

                  1.       This Second Amendment shall amend only that Section
specified herein and those Sections not amended hereby shall remain in full
force and effect.

                  2.       Section 2(i) of the Plan, which defines the term
"Purchase Date," shall be amended and restated in its entirety as follows:

                           (i)      "Purchase Date" means the last business day
                                    of each Subscription Period.

                  3.       This Second Amendment shall be effective for
Subscription Periods beginning on or after January 1, 1996.
S. J. Res. 99

One Hundred Third Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the fifth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-three

Joint Resolution

Designating September 9, 1993, and April 21, 1994, each as ‘‘National

D.A.R.E. Day’’.

Whereas Drug Abuse Resistance Education (in this joint resolution

referred to as ‘‘D.A.R.E.’’) is the largest and most effective druguse prevention education program in the United States, and

is now taught to 25,000,000 youths in grades K–12;

Whereas D.A.R.E. is taught in more than 250,000 classrooms reaching all 50 States, Australia, New Zealand, American Samoa,

Canada, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Costa Rica, Mexico,

Brazil, Hungary, and Department of Defense Dependent Schools

worldwide;

Whereas the D.A.R.E. core curriculum, developed by the Los

Angeles Police Department and the Los Angeles Unified School

District, helps prevent substance abuse among school-age children

by providing students with accurate information about alcohol

and drugs, teaching students decision-making skills, educating

students about the consequences of certain behaviors, and building students’ self-esteem while teaching them how to resist peer

pressure;

Whereas D.A.R.E. provides parents with information and guidance

to further the development of their children and reinforce the

decisions of their children to lead drug-free lives;

Whereas D.A.R.E. is taught by street-wise veteran police officers

with years of direct experience with people whose lives were

ruined by substance abuse, giving them unmatched credibility;

Whereas each police officer who teaches D.A.R.E. completes 80

hours of specialized training in areas such as child development,

classroom management, teaching techniques, and communication

skills;

Whereas independent research has found that D.A.R.E. substantially impacts students’ attitudes toward substance use, contributes to improved study habits, higher grades, decreased vandalism and gang activity, and generates greater respect for police

officers; and

Whereas 1993 marks the 10th year that D.A.R.E. has provided

students with the skills they will need as young adults to resist

the temptations of drug abuse: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the

United States of America in Congress assembled, That September

9, 1993, and April 21, 1994, are each designated as ‘‘National
S. J. Res. 99—2

D.A.R.E. Day’’, and the President of the United States is authorized

and requested to issue a proclamation calling upon the people

of the United States to observe such days with appropriate ceremonies and activities.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 10.1



                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
Forms S-8 (Registration Nos. 333-96630, 333-08826, 333-10092, 333-12466 and
333-12988) Form F-3 (Registration No. 333-12698) and Form F-4 (Registration No.
333-71422) of our report dated April 14, 2003, with respect to the consolidated
financial statements of Gilat Satellite Networks Ltd. included in this Annual
Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2002.






                                                     Yours Truly,


April 14, 2003                                   KOST, FORER and GABBAY
Tel-Aviv, Israel                           A Member of Ernst & Young Global
Exhibit 10.73


 


Summary of the Cablevision CHOICE
Excess Cash Balance Plan


 


CSC Holdings, Inc.
maintains the Cablevision CHOICE Excess Cash Balance Plan, which is an
unfunded, non-contributory, non-qualified pension plan that operates in
conjunction with the Company's tax-qualified Cablevision CHOICE Cash Balance
Retirement Plan.  The Excess Cash Balance
Plan provides additional retirement benefits to any employee who is a
participant in the Cash Balance Plan and whose compensation for a calendar year
exceeds the Internal Revenue Code limit on the amount of compensation that can
be taken into account in determining contributions under tax-qualified pension
plans ($220,000 in 2006). The Excess Cash Balance Plan establishes an account
for each participant that is credited with an annual benefit as of the last day
of the plan year based upon the participant’s age and eligible compensation, in
an amount equal to the contribution that could not be made on his behalf under
the Cash Balance Plan due to the compensation limitation.  This annual benefit can range from 3% to 9%
of the employee's compensation in excess of the limit, depending on the
employee's age.  In addition, the Company
credits each Excess Cash Balance Plan account monthly with interest at the same
rate used under the Cash Balance Plan (which is based on the average of the
annual interest rates on 30 year treasury bonds for September, October and
November of the prior year).  A
participant vests in his Excess Cash Balance Plan account over five years (subject
to full vesting upon death, disability or retirement after attaining age
65).  Distributions are made in a lump
sum as soon as practicable after the participant's termination of employment
with the Company and all affiliates.