alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Edward FURLOW v. Mr. Hayden DEES, Warden, Dixon Correctional Institute, State of Louisiana.

No. 80-K-2694.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 9, 1981.

In re Edward Furlow, applying for writ of certiorari. Parish of Tangipahoa. No. 43054.

Denied.

LEMMON, J., would grant the writ.
# C_2005236EN.01000201.xml

| 24.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 236/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 236/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

23 September 2005

(2005/C 236/02)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2118 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 135,07 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4611 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,6785 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,3683 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5557 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 75,2 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,791 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9555 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,573 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 29,502 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 248,08 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6961 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4293 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,9017 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 3,5549 |
| SIT | Slovenian tolar | 239,48 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 38,6 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,6274 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5935 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4209 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,4018 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7559 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,0387 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 249,24 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 7,6755 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 9,8047 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,4485 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 12 390,66 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,568 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 68,109 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 34,466 |
| THB | Thai baht | 49,75 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2118

JPY

Japanese yen

135,07

DKK

Danish krone

7,4611

GBP

Pound sterling

0,6785

SEK

Swedish krona

9,3683

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5557

ISK

Iceland króna

75,2

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,791

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9555

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,573

CZK

Czech koruna

29,502

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

248,08

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6961

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4293

PLN

Polish zloty

3,9017

RON

Romanian leu

3,5549

SIT

Slovenian tolar

239,48

SKK

Slovak koruna

38,6

TRY

Turkish lira

1,6274

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5935

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4209

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,4018

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7559

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,0387

KRW

South Korean won

1 249,24

ZAR

South African rand

7,6755

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

9,8047

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,4485

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

12 390,66

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,568

PHP

Philippine peso

68,109

RUB

Russian rouble

34,466

THB

Thai baht

49,75

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
#### § 137.210 What happens if self-governance activities under Title V reduce the administrative or other responsibilities of the Secretary with respect to the operation of Indian programs and result in savings?

To the extent that PSFAs carried out by Self-Governance Tribes under Title V reduce the administrative or other responsibilities of the Secretary with respect to the operation of Indian programs and result in savings that have not otherwise been included in the amount of Tribal shares and other funds determined under section 508(c) of the Act [25 U.S.C. 458aaa-7(c)], the Secretary must make such savings available to the Self-Governance Tribes, for the provision of additional services to program beneficiaries in a manner equitable to directly served, contracted, and compacted programs.
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Deputy Secretary Verma’s Meeting with Costa Rican President Chaves

# 									Deputy Secretary Verma’s Meeting with Costa Rican President Chaves							

Media Note

Office of the Spokesperson

December 14, 2023

On December 14, Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources Richard Verma and Costa Rican President Rodrigo Chaves Robles met to advance shared priorities and cooperation on regional and global issues.

Deputy Secretary Verma, Costa Rican Foreign Minister Arnoldo Andre, and President Chaves discussed the outcomes of the inaugural U.S.-Costa Rica High-Level Strategic Dialogue, which identified ways to expand our partnership on the shared goals related to security, humane migration management, and inclusive economic prosperity.

Tags

Bureau of Western Hemisphere AffairsCosta RicaDeputy Secretary of State for Management and ResourcesOffice of the Spokesperson

Back to Top
#### Andres F. RODRIGUEZ and Haydee Rodriguez, his wife, Appellants, v. Isaac RATTAN, Appellee.

No. 80-2164.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Sept. 1, 1981.

Richard N. Friedman, Miami, for appellants.

DuFresne & DuFresne and William Du-Fresne, Miami, for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, SCHWARTZ and FERGUSON, JJ.

*1338PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See: *Pan American Bank of Tampa v. Sullivan,*375 So.2d 338 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); *Frank v. Intercontinental Bank of Miami Beach,*372 So.2d 543 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); *Curr v. Helene Transportation Corp.,*287 So.2d 695 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); *Gunn Plumbing, Inc. v. Dania Bank,*252 So.2d 1 (Fla.1971); *Economy Plumbing Co., Inc. v. Charles Sales Corp.,*204 So.2d 348 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967); *Dunscombe v. Smith,*139 Fla. 497, 190 So. 796 (1939); *Treadwell v. Exchange National Bank of Tampa,*127 Fla. 40, 172 So. 914 (1937); *Franklin Phosphate Company, a Corporation v. International Harvester Company of America,*62 Fla. 185, 57 So. 206 (1912); *Padgett v. Lewis,*54 Fla. 177, 45 So. 29 (1907); Sections 673.3-408 and 673.3—415, Florida Statutes (1979). Compare: *Eastern Steamship Lines, Inc. v. Martial,*380 So.2d 1070 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); *King Pest Control v. Binger,*379 So.2d 660 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); *Kramlich Associates, Inc. v. Robins,*312 So.2d 543 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975); *Mr. Land, Inc. v. Rabinowitz,*134 So.2d 859 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961).
HomeThailand

# Thailand

170 items

        -    		U.S. Consulate General Chiang Mai	  Chiang Mai, Thailand 
        -    		Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs: Thailand Summary	   
        -    Report  		2018 END Wildlife Trafficking Report	  October 10, 2018 
        -    Report  		Thailand	  July 19, 2018 
        -    TIAS  		Thailand (18-705) – Extension to the Agreement of August 6, 2013 Concerning Scientific and Technical Cooperation	  July 5, 2018 
        -    Report  		Thailand	  June 28, 2018 
        -    Report  		Thailand	  May 29, 2018 
        -    Report  		Thailand	  April 20, 2018 
        -    		Gauging Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) Acceptability and Expanding PrEP Access as an HIV Prevention Intervention for Key Populations in Thailand	  February 7, 2018 
        -    		Reducing Dependence on External Donor Financing: Building Capacity for Social Health Insurance in Vietnam and Thailand for People Living with HIV	  February 7, 2018 

previous page1…1314151617next page

Back to Top
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 00273**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name 3**  **Description** x 00273\00273_PartA.XLS Plant submitted survey file x 00273\00273_Part B.xls Plant submitted survey file x 00273\00273_PartC.XLS Plant submitted survey file x 00273\00273_PartD.XLS Plant submitted survey file x 00273\00273_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file

00273\Certification Statement_ 00273.pdf Plant certification statement x 00273\Supporting Documentation\00273_MAP-1.PDF Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 00273\Supporting Documentation\00273_Pond-1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 00273\Supporting Documentation\00273_WB-1.PDF Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 00273\Supporting Documentation\Pond-2.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 00273\00273_email.pdf Follow-up correspondence regarding survey contents x 00273\00273_Checklist.XLS EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

00273\00273_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database

. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket. 3No hardcopy log is included for this plant as no hardcopy materials were received.
**CMF** IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 1 9 - 0729 CHRISTOPHER WAGNER ,

Petitioner and Appellant , v. STATE OF MONTANA ,

Respondent and Appellee .

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 30 - day extension of time, and good cause appearing therefor, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellee is granted an extension of time to and including July 14 , 2020 , within which to prepare, serve, and file its response brief

.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

June 8 2020

06/08/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0729
#### Patricia Ann Deaner COMPTON v. Huey COMPTON.

No. 65094.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 4, 1979.

In re Huey Compton, applying for certio-rari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit. Parish of . Webster. 371 So.2d 313.

Denied.

DENNIS, J., would grant the writ.
#### Richard H. LOWENBURG v. LABOR POOL OF AMERICA, INC. and Home Indemnity Company.

No. 55127.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 24, 1974.

In re: Surplus Underwriters, Inc. and Mike Smith, applying for Certiorari or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans. 296 So. 2d 846.

Writ denied. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal, we cannot say the result is incorrect.

DIXON and MARCUS, JJ., are of the opinion the writ should be granted.
# C_2005205EN.01003101.xml

| 20.8.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 205/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.8.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 205/31

---

Action brought on 13 June 2005 by Gerrit Bethuyne and four others against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-234/05)

(2005/C 205/56)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 13 June 2005 by Gerrit Bethuyne, residing in Dentergem (Belgium), and four others, represented by Sébastien Orlandi, Xavier Martin, Albert Coolen and Etienne Marchal, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| 1. | annul the decisions to appoint the applicants officials of the European Communities, insofar as those decisions determine their grade of recruitment in accordance with Article 12 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations; |
| --- | --- |

1.

annul the decisions to appoint the applicants officials of the European Communities, insofar as those decisions determine their grade of recruitment in accordance with Article 12 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations;

| 2. | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas and arguments relied on by the applicants are identical to those of the applicants in Case T-130/05 (1).

1

---

(1)  OJ C 132, 28.5.2005, p. 31.

1

---
#### § 137.90 May the Secretary increase the funds required under the funding agreement?

Yes, the Secretary may increase the funds required under the funding agreement. However, the Self-Governance Tribe and the Secretary must agree to any transfer of funds to the Self-Governance Tribe unless otherwise provided for in the funding agreement.
#### Arthur J. D’AMATO and Carriage Hill Corporation, a Florida corporation, Appellants, v. Robert B. BYRNE et al., Raymond A. Hurley, Marie M. Talton, Patricia Ann Phillips, John Moran, David S. Swan, and Continental Building Corporation, Appellees.

No. 74-602.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 28, 1974.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Palm Beach County; James Stewart, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
smsi-ex106_192.htm



EXHIBIT 10.6.3

 

AMENDMENT TO SMITH MICRO SOFTWARE, INC.

2015 OMNIBUS EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN

 

 

The Smith Micro Software, Inc. 2015 Omnibus Equity Incentive Plan (as previously amended on June 14, 2018, the “Plan”) is hereby amended as of the date set forth below, as follows:

Section 5.1(a) shall be stricken and replaced in its entirety with the following:

“(a) Share Reserve. The Committee may from time to time grant Awards to one or more Employees, Directors and/or Consultants determined by it to be eligible for participation in the Plan in accordance with the provisions of Article VI. The maximum aggregate number of Shares which may be issued pursuant to all Awards may not exceed Nine Million Six Hundred Twenty-Five Thousand (9,625,000) (subject to adjustment in the same manner provided in Article XV with respect to Shares subject to Awards then outstanding) (the “Share Reserve”).”

The remaining provisions of the Plan are not modified or changed by this Amendment.  

This Amendment was adopted by the Board of Directors of Smith Micro Software, Inc. on April 14, 2020 and by its stockholders on June 9, 2020.


	
Dated:  June 9, 2020
	
/s/ Timothy C. Huffmyer




Timothy C. Huffmyer

Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Secretary
#### Carl Lynn MARTIN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 78-1370.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 2, 1979.

Jack 0. Johnson, Public Defender, Bar-tow, and William Murphy, Asst. Public Defender, Tampa, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Charles Corees, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *See Harris v. State,*370 So.2d 74 (Fla. 2d DCA, 1979); *Martin v. State,*367 So.2d 1119 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979).

BOARDMAN, Acting C. J., and RYDER and DANAHY, JJ., concur.
#### § 405.506 Charges higher than customary or prevailing charges or lowest charge levels.

A charge which exceeds the customary charge of the physician or other person who rendered the medical or other health service, or the prevailing charge in the locality, or an applicable lowest charge level may be found to be reasonable, but only where there are unusual circumstances, or medical complications requiring additional time, effort or expense which support an additional charge, and only if it is acceptable medical or medical service practice in the locality to make an extra charge in such cases. The mere fact that the physician's or other person's customary charge is higher than prevailing would not justify a determination that it is reasonable.

(Secs. 1102, 1842(b) and 1871, 1903(i)(1) of the Social Security Act; 49 Stat. 647, 79 Stat. 302, 310, 331; 86 Stat. 1395, 1454; (42 U.S.C. 1302, 1395u(b), 1395hh, 1396b(i)(1)))

[43 FR 32300, July 26, 1978]
----

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof by order of that court of 30 June 2005 in ASML Netherlands BV v SEMIS Semiconductor Industry Services GmbH

(Case C-283/05)

(2005/C 229/17)

Language of the case: German

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Oberster Gerichtshof of 30 June 2005, received at the Court Registry on 14 July 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between ASML Netherlands BV and SEMIS Semiconductor Industry Services GmbH on the following questions:

----

(1)OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1.

----
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 20

- 13114 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 0:19

- cv - 60108

- RAR

ANDREW THOMPSON,
Plaintiff

- Appellant,

versus BRANCH BANKING & TRUST COMPANY,
Defendant

- Appellee.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida

________________________ ( September 22, 2021 ) Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge , W ILSON and ROSENBAUM , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

USCA11 Case: 20-13114 Date Filed: 09/22/2021 Page: 1 of 32 Andrew Thompson appeals pro se the summary judgment against his second amended complaint that Branch Banking & Trust Company violated the
Telecommunications Consumer Protection Act of 1991

. See 47 U.S.C. § 227

. Thompson also challenge s the award of attorneys’ fees to Branch Bank ing , but we earlier dismissed his appeal of that decision for failure to prosecute. Because Thompson failed to object after a magistrate judge recommended that the district

c ourt enter summary judgment in favor of Branch Bank ing , w e affirm. Thompson waived his right to appeal the summary judgment against his complaint. A party must “serve and file written objections” to a magistrate judge ’ s report and recommendation within 14 days of that decision, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) , and the failure to do so “ waives the right to challenge on appeal the district court ’ s order based on unobjected

- to factual and legal conclusions , ” 11th Cir. R. 3

- 1. As
Branch Bank ing argues , Thompson failed to heed the magistrate judge’s warning
that the “[ f ] ailure to timely file objections

. . . bar [red] . . . a de novo determination by the District Judge of an issue covered in the Report and

. . . [any] attack [] on appeal [to] unobjected

- to factual a nd legal conclusions .” In the absence of an objection, t he district court a cce pted the magistrate judge’s determination that no material dispute existed that Branch Banking did not violate the Act when it had express permission to call a second party who f orwarded the telephone calls to Thompson. See Mais v. Gulf Coa s t Collection Bureau, Inc. , 768 F.3d 1110, 1118

USCA11 Case: 20-13114 Date Filed: 09/22/2021 Page: 2 of 33 (11th Cir. 2014)

. B ecause Thompson failed to object after being warned “of all of the consequences on appeal for failing to object,” he waived any challenge he
could have made to the adverse ruling. See Harrigan v. Metro Dade Police Dep’t
Station #4 , 977 F.3d 1185, 1192 (11th Cir. 2020).
We AFFIRM the summary judgment in favor of Branch Banking & Trust. USCA11 Case: 20-13114 Date Filed: 09/22/2021 Page: 3 of 3
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2731

To require the United States to oppose and vote against any proposal to

create any financing mechanism designed to prevent or resolve the insolvency of sovereign nations.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

DECEMBER 6, 1995

Mr. SOLOMON (for himself, Mr. ROHRABACHER, and Mr. TRAFICANT) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Banking

and Financial Services

A BILL

To require the United States to oppose and vote against

any proposal to create any financing mechanism designed

to prevent or resolve the insolvency of sovereign nations.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. OPPOSITION OF UNITED STATES TO INTER4 NATIONAL BAILOUT FUND.

5 Title XV of the International Financial Institutions

6 Act (22 U.S.C. 262o) is amended by inserting after sec7 tion 1501 the following:
2

•HR 2731 IH

1 ‘‘SEC. 1502. OPPOSITION TO CREATION OF AN INTER2 NATIONAL BAILOUT FUND.

3 ‘‘The Secretary of the Treasury shall instruct the

4 United States Executive Director of each international fi5 nancial institution (as defined in section 1701(c)(2)) to

6 use the voice and vote of the United States to oppose the

7 creation of any financing mechanism designed to prevent

8 or resolve the insolvency of sovereign nations.’’.

Æ
#### Joseph Russell HOBBIE v. STATE.

3 Div. 864.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

Oct. 31, 1978.

Application for Rehearing Dismissed Dec. 19, 1978.

No brief for appellant on original submission.

Elno A. Smith, Jr., Montgomery, for appellant, on rehearing.

William J. Baxley, Atty. Gen., and Elizabeth N. Petree, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State, appellee.

No brief for the State, on rehearing.

AFFIRMED; no opinion.

*686ON REHEARING

BOWEN, Judge.

The appellant was indicted and convicted for robbery and sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment. This court affirmed his conviction without opinion. *Hobbie v. State,*3 Div. 864, decided October 31, 1978. No brief was filed on behalf of the appellant on original submission.

Now on application for rehearing the appellant presents this court with a brief. Rule 40, Alabama Rules of Appellate Procedure specifically prohibits an application for rehearing, as a matter of right, by any party who did not submit an original brief. The appellant has shown no cause, excuse, or justification as to why we should entertain this application. Therefore, the application for rehearing is due to be and is hereby dismissed.

Lest the appellant feel that his efforts are a total loss, we have considered the issues presented in his brief and find them to be without merit. In an indictment charging robbery the ownership of stolen property is properly laid in the party in possession, either as owner conditional, or bailee, or agent. *Fowler v. State,*100 Ala. 96, 99, 14 So. 860 (1893); *Dorsey*v. *State,*134 Ala. 553, 33 So. 350 (1902); *Montgomery v. State,*169 Ala. 12, 53 So. 991 (1910); *Mays v. State,*335 So.2d 246 (Ala.Cr.App. 1976); *Bray v. State,*47 Ala.App. 308, 253 So.2d 531, cert. denied, 287 Ala. 726, 253 So.2d 533 (1971); *Riggens v. State,*44 Ala. App. 275, 207 So.2d 141 (1968); *Howell v. State,*26 Ala.App. 612, 164 So. 764 (1936). The indictment need not aver that the person robbed was lawfully in possession or the legal custodian of the property stolen. *Danzey v. State,*126 Ala. 15, 28 So. 697 (1900). There is no material variance between an indictment which charges that the property taken was the personal property of a named individual and proof showing that the property belonged to another or to a corporation. *Montgomery,*supra;*Mays v. State,*335 So.2d 246 (Ala.Cr.App.1976); *Mitchell*v. *State,*57 Ala.App. 601, 329 So.2d 658, cert. denied, 295 Ala. 412, 329 So.2d 663 (1976); *Oliver v. State,*55 Ala.App. 192, 314 So.2d 111 (1975); *Woods v. State,*55 Ala. App. 450, 316 So.2d 698 (1975); *Argo v. State,*42 Ala.App. 454, 168 So.2d 19, cert. denied, 277 Ala. 177, 168 So.2d 23 (1964); *Nix v. State,*33 Ala.App. 603, 36 So.2d 452 (1948).

APPLICATION FOR REHEARING DISMISSED.

All Judges concur.