alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

DR. WILLIAM LATSON

, Appellant,

v.

SCHOOL BOARD OF PALM BEACH COUNTY

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 20

- 2577

[ November 3, 2021 ]

Appeal from the State of Florida, Division of Administrative Hearings

, and the School Board of Palm Beach County ; L.T. Case No. DOAH 19

- 6177

.

Thomas E. Elfers, Miami, and Craig J. Freger, Pembroke Pines, for appellant.

Sean Fahey, Office of General Counsel, The School Board of Palm Beach County, Florida, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

We affirm the S chool Board’s order terminating appellant’s employment. The Board’s rejection of conclusions reached in the administrative law judge’s order , which were mixed questions of fact and law, were imbued with policy considerations on which the appellate court should defer to the agency. See Winters v. Fla. Bd. of Regents , 834 So. 2d 243, 250 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (affirming in part agency order which rejected hearing officer’s findings and conclusions, noting that “where the matter

under review ‘ is infused with overriding policy considerations, the issue should be left to the agency. ’ ” (citing Pillsbury v. State, Dep’t of Health &

Re habilitative Servs. , 744 So. 2d 1040, 1042 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) ) )

.

Affirmed

.

W ARNER
, L EVINE and K LINGENSMITH , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
MATERIALS NOT INCLUDED IN

AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE (AD) DOCKET

FAA-2012-1128

Docket Number

2012-SW-064-AD

Directorate Identifier

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in DMS Docket and Maintained in the 

Supplemental AD Docket - NPRM

Eurocopter Emergency Alert Service Bulletin No. 63A011, Revision 0, dated 

August 1, 2012,

MAY BE VIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration

Office of the Regional Counsel,

Southwest Region

Rules Docket

2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663

Fort Worth, Texas 76137

DURING THE HOURS OF: 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays.
§ 20.2056(b)-8 Special rule for charitable remainder trusts. ( a ) *In general* — ( 1 ) *Surviving spouse only noncharitable beneficiary.* With respect to estates of decedents dying after December 31, 1981, subject to section 2056(d), if the surviving spouse of the decedent is the only noncharitable beneficiary of a charitable remainder annuity trust or a charitable remainder unitrust described in section 664 (qualified charitable remainder trust), section 2056(b)(1) does not apply to the interest in the trust that is transferred to the surviving spouse. Thus, the value of the annuity or unitrust interest passing to the spouse qualifies for a marital deduction under section 2056(b)(8) and the value of the remainder interest qualifies for a charitable deduction under section 2055. If an interest in property qualifies for a marital deduction under section 2056(b)(8), no election may be made with respect to the property under section 2056(b)(7). For purposes of this section, the term *non-charitable beneficiary* means any beneficiary of the qualified charitable remainder trust other than an organization described in section 170(c).
( 2 ) *Interest for life or term of years.* The surviving spouse's interest need not be an interest for life to qualify for a marital deduction under section 2056(b)(8). However, for purposes of section 664, an annuity or unitrust interest payable to the spouse for a term of years cannot be payable for a term that exceeds 20 years.
( 3 ) *Payment of state death taxes.* A deduction is allowed under section 2056(b)(8) even if the transfer to the surviving spouse is conditioned on the spouse's payment of state death taxes, if any, attributable to the qualified charitable remainder trust. See § 20.2056(b)-4(c) for the effect of such a condition on the amount of the deduction allowable.
( b ) *Charitable remainder trusts where the surviving spouse is not the only noncharitable beneficiary.* In the case of a charitable remainder trust where the decedent's spouse is not the only noncharitable beneficiary (for example, where the noncharitable interest is payable to the decedent's spouse for life and then to another individual for life), the qualification of the interest as qualified terminable interest property is determined solely under section 2056(b)(7) and not under section 2056(b)(8). Accordingly, if the decedent died on or before October 24, 1992, or the trust otherwise comes within the purview of the transitional rules contained in § 20.2056(b)-7(e)(5), the spousal annuity or unitrust interest may qualify under § 20.2056(b)-(7)(e) as a qualifying income interest for life.
[T.D. 8522, 59 FR 9653, Mar. 1, 1994]
ACCEPTED

06-14-00148-CR

SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS

TEXARKANA, TEXAS

4/1/2015 1:45:53 PM

DEBBIE AUTREY

CLERK

 FILED IN 6th COURT OF APPEALS TEXARKANA, TEXAS 4/1/2015 1:45:53 PM DEBBIE AUTREY Clerk
Summary of Employment Agreement - Enze


    Exhibit
      10(n)

     

     

    Chuck
      Enze 

    Employment
      Arrangements 

     

    Since
      June 1, 2006, TXU Corp. (the “Company”) has employed Chuck Enze as Chief
      Executive Officer, Construction on an at-will employee basis. The Company pays
      Mr. Enze an annual salary equal to $550,000, and Mr. Enze is eligible
      to participate in all compensation and benefit plans of the Company in which
      similarly situated executives are eligible to participate, which currently
      include the TXU Corp. Executive Annual Incentive Plan, the TXU Corp. 2005
      Omnibus Incentive Plan, the TXU Corp. Salary Deferral Plan, the TXU Executive
      Financial Advisement Program, the Executive Physical Examination Program, the
      TXU Second Supplemental Retirement Plan, the TXU Corp. Executive Change in
      Control Policy and the TXU Corp. 2005 Executive Severance Plan. Assuming Mr.
      Enze is employed with the Company on the date 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 awards
      are granted, respectively, pursuant to the 2005 Omnibus Incentive Plan, the
      award to be granted to Mr. Enze for each year will have a face value equal
      to
      not less than $400,000, based on the share price of the Company’s common stock
      at the time of grant.

     

    In
      addition, Mr. Enze is entitled to a supplemental benefit, in the form of a
      single lump sum, equal to $3,100,000, which amount will be reduced by the value
      of the Company pension payable to Mr. Enze under the TXU Retirement Plan and
      the
      Second Supplemental Retirement Plan earned by Mr. Enze up to the age of 60.
      The
      supplemental benefit will be paid upon the earlier to occur of Mr. Enze’s
      separation of service from the Company or his death.
#### § 20.2053-2 Deduction for funeral expenses.

Such amounts for funeral expenses are allowed as deductions from a decedent's gross estate as (a) are actually expended, (b) would be properly allowable out of property subject to claims under the laws of the local jurisdiction, and (c) satisfy the requirements of paragraph (c) of § 20.2053-1. A reasonable expenditure for a tombstone, monument, or mausoleum, or for a burial lot, either for the decedent or his family, including a reasonable expenditure for its future care, may be deducted under this heading, provided such an expenditure is allowable by the local law. Included in funeral expenses is the cost of transportation of the person bringing the body to the place of burial.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 146 Received in Senate (RDS)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 146

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

               March 27 (legislative day, March 26), 1996

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
Authorizing the 1996 Special Olympics Torch Relay to be run through the 
                            Capitol Grounds.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),

SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF RUNNING OF SPECIAL OLYMPICS TORCH RELAY 
              THROUGH CAPITOL GROUNDS.

    On May 24, 1996, or on such other date as the Speaker of the House 
of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate may 
jointly designate, the 1996 Special Olympics Torch Relay may be run 
through the Capitol Grounds, as part of the journey of the Special 
Olympics torch to the District of Columbia Special Olympics summer 
games at Gallaudet University in the District of Columbia.

SEC. 2. RESPONSIBILITY OF CAPITOL POLICE BOARD.

    The Capitol Police Board shall take such actions as may be 
necessary to carry out section 1.

SEC. 3. CONDITIONS RELATING TO PHYSICAL PREPARATIONS.

    The Architect of the Capitol may prescribe conditions for physical 
preparations for the event authorized by section 1.

            Passed the House of Representatives March 26, 1996.

            Attest:

                                                ROBIN H. CARLE,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
<page>
                                                    EXHIBIT 31.02
CERTIFICATIONS


I, Kevin Perry, Chief Financial Officer of Demeter Management
Corporation ("Demeter"), the general partner of the registrant,
certify that:

1.	I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the
registrant;

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;

3.	Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
financial information included in this report, fairly present
in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for,
the periods presented in this report;

4.	The registrant's other certifying officer and I are
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure
controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a)	Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or
caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be
designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by
others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this report is being prepared;

	b)	Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's
disclosure controls and procedures and presented in
this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
of the period covered by this report based on such
evaluation; and
c)	Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred
during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the <page>
registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
and

5.	The registrant's other certifying officer and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal
control over financial reporting, to the registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of Demeter's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a)	All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in
the design or operation of internal control over
financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information;
and

b)	Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
management or other employees who have a significant
role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.




Date:  November 15, 2004       /s/	Kevin Perry
	Kevin Perry
	Chief Financial Officer,
	Demeter Management Corporation,
	general partner of the registrant
Third Amendment to the 2001 Restatement



 Exhibit 10.92 
 THIRD AMENDMENT TO 
 2001 RESTATEMENT OF 
 THE HARRAH’S ENTERTAINMENT, INC. 
 SAVINGS AND RETIREMENT PLAN

 WHEREAS, Harrah’s Entertainment, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), has established and maintains the
Harrah’s Entertainment, Inc. Savings and Retirement Plan (the “Plan”) for the benefit of its eligible employees and the eligible employees of certain participating companies; and 
 WHEREAS, the Plan was amended and restated effective generally January 1, 2002, in order to comply with changes required by law and to incorporate
its various amendments; and 
 WHEREAS, amendment procedure as approved by the Human Resources Committee of the Company’s Board of
Directors (the “HRC”) in July 2000 and incorporated in the Tenth Amendment to the Harrah’s Entertainment, Inc. Savings and Retirement Plan (prior to its restatement) was inadvertently omitted from the restated Plan document; and

 WHEREAS, it is desirable to revise the Plan’s current amendment procedure to reflect the original directive of the HRC. 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, this Third Amendment to the 2001 Restatement of the Plan is adopted and shall supersede the provisions of the
Plan to the extent those provisions are inconsistent with the provisions of this Third Amendment. 
 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, pursuant to
the power and authority reserved by Section 14.2(b) of the Plan to the Company’s Vice President, Human Resources, Section 14.2 of the Plan is hereby amended as follows, effective as of the date this Third Amendment is executed:








 “Section 14.2 Amendment of Plan. 
 (a)    The Company expects the Plan to be permanent, but the Company must necessarily and does hereby reserve the
right to amend or modify in any respect, or to terminate, the Plan at any time, for any reason whatsoever, by action of any one of the following: the Board, the HRC, the Company’s Chief Executive Officer, the Company’s Senior Vice
President of Human Resources, or another person designated by the Chief Executive Officer. The Company may make any modifications or amendments to the Plan, retroactively if necessary or appropriate, to qualify or maintain the Plan as a plan meeting
the requirements of the Code or of ERISA, or the regulations issued thereunder. 
 (b)    As limited in
Section 14.3 of the Plan, no amendment shall decrease the vested percentage any Participant has in his Accounts. The Plan may be amended or terminated under this Section without the vote of the stockholders of the Company, except to the extent
that stockholder approval is required by Rule 16b-3, promulgated under section 16 of Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.” 
 IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Third Amendment to be executed by its duly authorized officer on this 24 day of November, 2003. 
  

			
	HARRAH’S ENTERTAINMENT, INC.
		
	By:    	 	 /s/ MARILYN G. WINN

		 	Marilyn Winn
		 	Senior Vice President, Human Resources
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 Universal Express, Inc. (the
"Company") on form 10-QSB for the period ended December 31, 2003 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the"Report"), I, Richard
A. Altomare, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
Certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(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 results of operations of the Company.

                                           By:    /S/ RICHARD A. ALTOMARE
                                                  ------------------------------
                                                  Richard A. Altomare,
                                                  Chief Executive Officer and
                                                  Chief Financial Officer
Date:  February    , 2004


                                      -20-
<PAGE>
#### § 1.661(b)-1 Character of amounts distributed; in general.

In the absence of specific provisions in the governing instrument for the allocation of different classes of income, or unless local law requires such an allocation, the amount deductible for distributions to beneficiaries under section 661(a) is treated as consisting of the same proportion of each class of items entering into the computation of distributable net income as the total of each class bears to the total distributable net income. For example, if a trust has distributable net income of $20,000, consisting of $10,000 each of taxable interest and royalties and distributes $10,000 to beneficiary A, the deduction of $10,000 allowable under section 661(a) is deemed to consist of $5,000 each of taxable interest and royalties, unless the trust instrument specifically provides for the distribution or accumulation of different classes of income or unless local law requires such an allocation. See also § 1.661(c)-1.
39708.

#### STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT v. HIGHTOWER.

Decided September 21, 1962

Rehearing denied October 2, 1962.

*Eugene Cook, Attorney General, Carter Goode, E. J. Summerour, Assistant Attorneys General, Dudley S. Hancock,*for plaintiff in error.

*Webb & Fowler, W. Howard Fowler,*contra.

Eberhardt, Judge.

The general demurrer of the condemnee to the State Highway Department’s petition and “declaration of taking” filed under the authority of Ga. L. 1961, pp. 517-529 *(Code Ann. Ch.*36-13) seeking to condemn certain property for a limited access interstate highway was properly sustained. *State Highway Dept. v. Hatcher,*218 Ga. 299.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Carlisle, P. J., and Bussell, J., concur.*
39602.

#### FREEMAN v. THE STATE.

Franicum, Judge.

The grand jury of Crisp County returned an indictment against Cecil Freeman charging him with larceny after trust. The defendant filed a demurrer to the indictment containing one general and several special grounds, which demurrer was overruled. The defendant excepted. *Held:*

1. The indictment was drawn under *Code*§ 26-2808, which provides as follows: “Any person employed in any capacity in any store or other place of trade or exchange, where, from the nature of the business or employment, it is necessary or usual to entrust to such person any goods or any other article of value, who shall fraudulently take and carry away, or convert to his own use, or otherwise dispose of any of the said goods or other thing of value thus entrusted to him or committed to his charge, to the injury and without the consent of the owner thereof or person thus entrusting him, shall be punished by imprisonment and labor in the penitentiary for not less than one year nor more than five years.” Since the indictment is substantially in language contained in this Code section, the court did not err in overruling the general ground of the demurrer. *Code*§ 27-701.

2. By the special grounds of his demurrer the defendant contends that the indictment is duplicitous. The defendant relies upon *Hamby v. State,*76 Ga. App. 549 (46 SE2d 615), to sustain this position. The court held in the *Hamby*case that the statute *(Code*§ 26-2811, under which the indictment in that case was drawn) sets forth two distinct criminal offenses, and, since the indictment in that case charged in a single count the two offenses embraced in *Code*§ 26-2811, it was subject to demurrer upon the ground of duplicity. Cf. *McCoy v. State,*15 Ga. 205; *Soule v. State,*71 Ga. 267. We *641have a different situation in the present case. Even if we assume that *Code*§ 26-2808 sets forth two separate offenses (which we do not decide), the indictment in the present case charges only one offense, namely, that (omitting other allegations) the accused “did fraudulently take and carry away and convert to his own use” certain described property of Joe M. Herring, etc. The indictment does not charge that the accused did “otherwise dispose of” the property, etc. It has been held that allegations such as in this indictment charge only one offense. *McCoy v. State, 15*Ga. 205; supra; *Soule v. State,*71 Ga. 267, supra; *Cody v. State,*100 Ga. 105 (28 SE 106). The court did not err in overruling the demurrer to the indictment.

Decided September 25, 1962.

*Davis & Friedin, Boy B. Friedin,*for plaintiff in error.

*Harry L. Jay, Solicitor General,*contra.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Nichols, P. J., and Jordan, J., concur.*
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.2

I, Kevin T. Thompson, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer,
certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Sky Financial Group,
Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statement, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors:

a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of the internal
controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal
controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: November 13, 2002                     /s/ Kevin T. Thompson
                                            ----------------------------
                                            Kevin T. Thompson
                                            Executive Vice President and
                                            Chief Financial Officer