alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth ___________________________

No. 02-19-00399-CR

___________________________

On Appeal from the 372nd District Court

Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No. 1614716R

Before Bassel, Womack, and Wallach, JJ.

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

TERRY LEE MORRIS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Terry Lee Morris filed a pro se notice of appeal, acknowledging that 

his guilty plea was “entered pursuant to the provisions of Article 1.15 of the Code of 

Criminal Pro[c]edure[] and that the punishment assessed does not . . . exceed that 

recommended by the Prosecutor and agreed to by the Defendant” but argues that his 

plea was “obtained by coercion of counsel.” The trial court certification states that 

this “is a plea-bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” See Tex. R. 

App. P. 25.2(a)(2), (d). The trial court’s judgment, which sets forth the terms of the 

plea, supports the certification.

We informed Appellant of our concern that we lack jurisdiction over this 

appeal based on the trial court’s certification. We gave Appellant the opportunity to 

file a response, which he did, but it does not show grounds for continuing this 

appeal.1

Accordingly, because the trial court’s certification indicates that Appellant has 

no right of appeal, we must dismiss this appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2), (d), 

43.2(f); Chavez v. State, 183 S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006); see also Cooper v. 

State, 45 S.W.3d 77, 82 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (holding that right of appeal in pleabargained cases set forth in Article 44.02 of the Code of Criminal Procedure excludes 

complaint that plea was involuntary).

1

In his response, Appellant requests that this court appoint counsel to assist 

him with filing his brief. We deny the request as moot.
3

Per Curiam

Do Not Publish

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

Delivered: February 13, 2020
## L M E O f

f i c i a l P r i c e s , U S $ p e r t o n n e C o n t r a c t P r i c e C a s h B u y e r 1 8 7 6

. 0 0 C a s h S e l l e r & S e t t l e m

e n t 1 8 7 6

. 5 0 3
- m o n t h s B u y e r 1 9 2 5

. 0 0 3
- m o n t h s S e l l e r 1 9 2 6

. 0 0 D e c 1 B u y e r 2 0 4 3

. 0 0 D e c 1 S e l l e r 2 0 4 8

. 0 0 D e c 2 B u y e r 2 1 3 8

. 0 0 D e c 2 S e l l e r 2 1 4 3

. 0 0 D e c 3 B u y e r 2 2 3 3

. 0 0 D e c 3 S e l l e r 2 2 3 8

. 0 0 

## L M E O f f i c i a l P r i c e s C u r

v e

S e t t l e m e n t E x c h a n g e R a t e s C u r r e n c y E

x c h a n g e r a t e L M E I n d e x v a l u e 3 2 2 6 H o m e M e t a l s N o n - f

e r r o u s m e t a l s A

l u m i n i u m 

# L M E A l u m i n i u m R e g i s t e r f o r f r e e ( / e n - g b / r

e g i s t e r - f o r - a d d i t i o n a l
- a c c e s

s / ) t o d i s p l a y h i s t o r i c a l a l u m i n i u m p r i c e s , s t o c k s o r m o n t h l y a v e r a g e s ( / e n - g b / m e t a l s

/ r e p o r t s / a v e r a g e s / )
. 

# S t o c k s a n d p r i c e s f o r 1 6 A u g u s t 2 0 1 3

L M E O f f i c i a l O p e n i n g s t o c k s i n t o n n e s S t o c k s A m o u n t O p e n i n g S t o c k 5 4 3 8 6 7 5 L i v e W a r r a n t s 3 3 7 8 2 7 5 C a n c e l l e d W a r r a n t s 2 0 6 0 4 0 0G B P

o u n d s S t e r l i n g 1

. 5 6 2 9 J a p a n e s e Y e n 9 7

. 5 5 E u r o 1

. 3 3 4 2 

## L M E A s i a n B e n c h m a r k , U S $ p e r t o n n e 

# 1 6 A u g u s t 2 0 1 3
M e t a l P r i c e A l u m i n i u m 3
- m

o n t h s A B R 1 9 1 5

. 8 6

A c c e s s r e a l t i m e p r i c e s a n d t r a d i n g i n f o r m a t i o n v i a L M E l i v e ( / e n - g b / p r i c i n g - a n d
- d a t a / l m e l i v e / ) o r o u r L i c e n s e d D a t a D i s t r i b u t o r n e t

w o r k ( / e n - g b / p r i c i n g - a n d
- d a t a / d i s t r i b u t o r s / )
.



# R i n g t r a d i n g t i m e s F i r s t s e s s i o n ( U K ) 1 s t R i n g 1 1 : 5 5
- 1 2 : 0 0 2 n d R i n g ( O f

f i c i a l ) 1 2 : 5 5
- 1 3 : 0 0 K e r b T r a d i n g * 1 3 : 2 0
- 1 4 : 4 5 

## S e c o n d s e s s i o n ( U K ) 1 s t R i n g 1 5 : 1 5
- 1 5 : 2 0 2 n d R i n g ( O f

f i c i a l ) 1 5 : 5 5
- 1 6 : 0 0 K e r b T r a d i n g 1 6 : 1 5
- 1 7 : 0 0

L o n d o n M e t a l E

x c h a n g e - A m

e m b e r o f H K E

x G r o u p
. © 2 0 1 3 T h e L o n d o n M e t a l E x c h a n g e
. A l l r i g h t s r e s e r v e d

.
Document

Exhibit 10.37


AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO 
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT




This AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (this "Amendment"), signed on the date set forth on the signature page, is between Bally's Corporation, formerly known as Twin River Worldwide Holdings Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), and George Papanier ("Executive" and, together with the Company, the "Parties").


WHEREAS, the Parties entered into an Employment Agreement on March 29, 2016, as amended on January 13, 2020 (the "Agreement") and desire to further amend the Agreement.


NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties hereto agree as follows:


1.Section 2 of the Agreement is amended to read in its entirety as follows:


"2. TERM. The initial term of employment under this Agreement began on the Effective Date and will continue through December 31, 2023, subject to prior termination in accordance with the terms hereof (the "Initial Term"). The Initial Term will be automatically extended for successive additional terms of one year first commencing on the day immediately following each December 31st beginning December 31, 2023 (each such period, an "Additional Term"). and subsequently on each annual anniversary ofthe end of an Additional Term, unless either Party gives written notice to the other Party of non-extension at least 60 days prior to the end of the Initial Term or to the end of the
then-applicable Additional Term (the Initial Term and any Additional Term(s), collectively. the "Term")."


2.The number "$700,000" in Section 3 (a) of the Agreement shall be replaced by "$950,000, effective as of January 16, 2021."


3.Section 3 (c) of the Agreement is added to read in its entirety as follows:
"(c) In addition, Executive will be entitled to an equity award of 114,482 Company common shares, half in time-vested restricted stock and half in performance stock units. The shares shall vest in one-third increments on December 31, 2021, December 31, 2022, and December 31, 2023.
4.Terms used herein with initial capital letters that are defined in the Agreement are used herein as so defined. Except as otherwise expressly set forth in this Amendment, the Agreement remains in full force and effect in accordance with its terms.























IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Amendment on the respective dates set forth below.




						
	BALLY'S CORPORATION
		
	By:	/s/ Craig Eaton
	Name:	Craig Eaton
	Title:	Executive Vice President and
		General Counsel
		
	Date Signed:	January 20, 2021
		
		
		
		/s/ George Papanier
	Name:	George Papanier
		
	Date Signed:	January 20, 2021














































2
§ 417.524 Payment to HMOs or CMPs: General. ( a ) *Basic rule.* The payments that CMS makes to an HMO or CMP under this subpart and subparts O and P of this part for furnishing covered Medicare services are in place of any payment that CMS would otherwise make to a beneficiary or the HMO or CMP under sections 1814(b) and 1833(a) of the Act.
( b ) *Basis of payment.* ( 1 ) CMS pays the HMOs or CMPs on either a reasonable cost basis or a risk basis depending on the type of contract the HMO or CMP has with CMS.
( 2 ) In certain cases a risk HMO or CMP also receives payments on a reasonable cost basis for certain Medicare enrollees who retain nonrisk status, as provided in § 417.444, after the HMO or CMP enters into a risk contract.
[60 FR 46229, Sept. 6, 1995]
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-14-00368-CR

LESTER FANE WEBB APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

----------

FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 1 OF TARRANT COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NO. 1304635D

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

----------

A jury convicted Appellant Lester Fane Webb of aggravated sexual assault 

of a child under the age of fourteen years and assessed his punishment at seven 

years’ confinement. The trial court sentenced him accordingly. In a single point,

Appellant contends that the trial court reversibly erred by refusing to allow him to 

present evidence concerning his good character.

 1

See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

As the State points out, to preserve error in a trial court’s exclusion of

evidence, the substance of the excluded evidence must be shown by an offer of

proof unless it is apparent from the context of the questions asked.2 Error may

be preserved by an offer of proof, either in question-and-answer form or in the

form of a concise statement by counsel.3 Counsel’s concise statement must

include a summary of the proposed testimony.4 Here, trial counsel made no 

offer of proof. We note, however, that by skillful questioning, able trial counsel 

nevertheless managed to present to the jury the witness’s opinion:

Q. Are you familiar for—with his reputation in the community for

being a peaceful and law-abiding citizen?

A. Yes, we are.

Q. Okay. And what is that reputation?

A. It’s a very upstanding reputation, caring [and] law abiding.

Q. Uh-huh. And his reputation for honesty?

A. Very good.

Q. Okay. Would you trust him around your grandchildren?

A. I sure would.

Q. No hesitation?

 2

Tex. R. Evid. 103(a)(2); Bundy v. State, 280 S.W.3d 425, 428 (Tex.

App.—Fort Worth 2009, pet. ref’d).

3

Tex. R. Evid. 103(a)(2), (c); Love v. State, 861 S.W.2d 899, 901 (Tex.

Crim. App. 1993).

4

Love, 861 S.W.2d at 901.
3

A. No hesitation.

Q. You understand what he is charged with here today?

A. Yes, [I] do.

Q. And you understand it involves R[.]?

A. Right.

Q. And the allegation is sexual abuse?

A. Right.

Q. And I can sit here and go into all the details about what the

allegation involves. Would that change your opinion of Mr.

Webb?

A. No.

Because Appellant did not preserve error, we overrule his sole point and 

affirm the trial court’s judgment.

/s/ Lee Ann Dauphinot

LEE ANN DAUPHINOT

JUSTICE

PANEL: DAUPHINOT, MEIER, and GABRIEL, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: June 11, 2015
# Tonga

51 items

        -    Report  		Tonga	  June 21, 2019 
        -    Report  		Tonga	  June 20, 2019 
        -    		Tonga	  April 22, 2019 
        -    Report  		Tonga	  March 13, 2019 
        -    Report  		Tonga	  June 28, 2018 
        -    Report  		Tonga	  May 29, 2018 
        -    Report  		Tonga	  April 20, 2018 
        -    Report  		Tonga	  August 15, 2017 
        -    Report  		Tonga	  June 27, 2017 
        -    Report  		Tonga	  March 3, 2017 

previous page1…3456next page

Back to Top
# C_2005271EN.01002302.xml

| 29.10.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.10.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/23

---

Action brought on 16 August 2005 — Kustom Musical Amplification/OHIM

(Case T-317/05)

(2005/C 271/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant(s): Kustom Musical Amplification Inc. (Cincinnati, USA) [represented by: M. Edenborough, barrister and T.Bamford, solicitor]

Applicant(s):

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the Decision of the Second Board of Appeal No 1035/2004-2, or alternatively, annul partially such that the specification of goods is restricted to ‘Stringed instruments, namely professional, electric guitars’ in class 15; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the Decision of the Second Board of Appeal No 1035/2004-2, or alternatively, annul partially such that the specification of goods is restricted to ‘Stringed instruments, namely professional, electric guitars’ in class 15;

| — | Remit the Community trade mark application No 3 206 372 to the office so as to allow the said application to proceed to advertisement; |
| --- | --- |

—

Remit the Community trade mark application No 3 206 372 to the office so as to allow the said application to proceed to advertisement;

| — | Order the respondent to pay to the appellant/applicant the costs incurred by the appellant/applicant in connection with this appeal and the appeal before the Board of Appeal and the prosecution before the examiner. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the respondent to pay to the appellant/applicant the costs incurred by the appellant/applicant in connection with this appeal and the appeal before the Board of Appeal and the prosecution before the examiner.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The three dimensional mark representing the body of the so-called Beast guitar for goods in class 15 (stringed instruments, namely guitars) (Community trade mark application No 3 206 372)

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the examiner: Rejection of the trade mark application.

Decision of the examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Violation of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 40/94.

Pleas in law:

---
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3281

To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1997 for certain maritime

programs of the Department of Transportation, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 22, 1996

Mr. BATEMAN (for himself and Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi) (both by request)

introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on National Security

A BILL

To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1997 for certain

maritime programs of the Department of Transportation,

and for other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Maritime Administra5 tion Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997’’.

6 SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL

7 YEAR 1997.

8 Funds are authorized to be appropriated without fis9 cal year limitation, as Appropriations Acts may provide
2

HR 3281 IH

1 for the use of the Department of Transportation, for the

2 fiscal year ending September 30, 1997, as follows:

3 (a) For expenses necessary for operations and

4 training activities, not to exceed $78,097,000.

5 (b) For the costs, as defined in section 502 of

6 the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, of guaran7 teed loans authorized by title XI of the Merchant

8 Marine Act, 1936, as amended (46 App. U.S.C.

9 1271 et seq.), $40,000,000. In addition, for adminis10 trative expenses related to loan guarantee commit11 ments under title XI of the Merchant Marine Act,

12 1936, as amended (46 App. U.S.C. 1271 et seq.),

13 $4,000,000.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          11,106
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,446,552
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              58,970,638
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                      5,596,234
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       105,710
<OTHER-SE>                                  37,573,763
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                37,679,473
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                71,472
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                11,316
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              52,839
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,317
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,317
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,317
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
Editorial Note on Part 414
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 414 appear at 60 FR 50442, Sept. 29, 1995, and 60 FR 53877, Oct. 18, 1995.

§ 414.236 Continuity of pricing when HCPCS codes are divided or combined. ( a ) *General rule.* If a new HCPCS code is added, CMS or contractors make every effort to determine whether the item and service has a fee schedule pricing history. If there is a fee schedule pricing history, the previous fee schedule amounts for the old code(s) are mapped to the new code(s) to ensure continuity of pricing.
( b ) *Mapping fee schedule amounts based on different kinds of coding changes.* When the code for an item is divided into several codes for the components of that item, the total of the separate fee schedule amounts established for the components must not be higher than the fee schedule amount for the original item. When there is a single code that describes two or more distinct complete items (for example, two different but related or similar items), and separate codes are subsequently established for each item, the fee schedule amounts that applied to the single code continue to apply to each of the items described by the new codes. When the codes for the components of a single item are combined in a single global code, the fee schedule amounts for the new code are established by totaling the fee schedule amounts used for the components (that is, use the total of the fee schedule amounts for the components as the fee schedule amount for the global code). When the codes for several different items are combined into a single code, the fee schedule amounts for the new code are established using the average (arithmetic mean), weighted by allowed services, of the fee schedule amounts for the formerly separate codes.
[84 FR 60808, Nov. 8, 2019]
#### Eddie Samuel IVORY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, et al., Appellee.

No. 78-813.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 5, 1978.

Eddie Samuel Ivory, in pro. per.

Janet Reno, State Atty., and Milton Robbins, Asst. State Atty., for appellee.

Before PEARSON, HENDRY and BARKDULL, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See: *Division of Corrections, State Parole and Probation Commission v. Tamargo,*329 So.2d 422 (Fla.2d DCA 1976); Section 944.291, Florida Statutes (1974).
----

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hajdú-Bihar Megyei Bíróság by order of that court of 3 March 2005 in Ákos Nádasdi v Vám- és Pénzügyőrség Észak-Alföldi Regionális Parancsnoksága

(Case C-290/05)

(2005/C 296/19)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Hajdú-Bihar Megyei Bíróság (Hungary) of 3 March 2005, received at the Court Registry on 19 July 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Ákos Nádasdi and Vám- és Pénzügyőrség Észak-Alföldi Regionális Parancsnoksága on the following questions:

----
Motion Granted; Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed March

21 , 2 023

.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 23

- 00055

- CV

IN RE COMMITMENT OF J UAN CARLOS RAMIREZ

On Appeal from the 176th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cau se No

. 1268291Z

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. This is an attempted appe al from a n order of civil commitment as a sexually violent predator signed November 10 , 20 22

. See Tex. Healt h & Saf ety Code Ann. § 841.146(b). Appellant filed a n untimel y motion for new trial on December 19,
202 2. Appellant ’ s notice of appeal was filed January 23, 2023
The notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days after the judgment is signed when app ellant has not filed a timely post

- judgment motion. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.12

Appellant ’ s notice of appeal w as not filed timely. A motion to extend time is necessarily implied when an appellant, acting in good faith, files a notice of appeal beyond the time allowed by Te xas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1, but within
the 15

- day grace period provided by Rule 26. 3 for filing a motion to extend time. See Verburgt v. Dorner , 959 S.W.2d 615, 617

– 18 (1997) (construing the predecessor to Rule 26). Appellant ’ s noti ce of appeal w as not filed within the
15

- day period provided by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.3

.
We grant appellant ’ s motion and dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction

.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Jewe ll and Spain.
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Embassy Luanda Launches the Dinheiro Digital é Melhor Project to Increase Financial Inclusion

# 									Embassy Luanda Launches the Dinheiro Digital é Melhor Project to Increase Financial Inclusion							

Media Note

Office of the Spokesperson

August 7, 2023

The U.S. Embassy in Angola launched the Dinheiro Digital é Melhor project with mobile operator Africell to improve and expand the use of mobile money applications, making it easier to send and receive money.  This two-year, nearly $5 million project, funded through the U.S. Government Agency for International Development (USAID), will support the Government of Angola’s objective to increase financial inclusion and the U.S. Government’s contribution to the Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment (PGII).  U.S. Ambassador to Angola and São Tomé e Príncipe, Tulinabo S. Mushingi, and PGII Senior Advisor Danae Pauli attended the official launch at the Africell headquarters in Luanda.  Angolan Secretary of State for Technical and Professional Learning, Gildo Matias, Secretary of State for Science, Technology and Innovation, Alice de Almeida, and National Director of Business and Planning, Laercio Cândido, also attended the launch, as well as representatives from international agencies, civil society, the private sector, and local media.

Building on President Biden’s commitment at the 2023 G7 Summit to support development of the Lobito Corridor and the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation’s existing financing for Africell in the DRC, Sierra Leone, and the Gambia, this project represents an expansion of the US government’s partnership with Angola to support sustainable economic development by empowering the Angolan people.   The Dinheiro Digital é Melhor Project in particular will empower ordinary Angolans to conveniently make and receive payments at their fingertips, bridging the gap between individuals and financial services, and breaking down barriers and reaching those previously excluded from the formal financial system.

For information about the Dinheiro Digital é Melhor project, please contact the U.S. Embassy Press, Culture and Education Section at pressluanda@state.gov or call 222-641-134.

Tags

AfricaAngolaBureau of African AffairsDemocratic Republic of the CongoEconomic Prosperity and Trade PolicyG7 SummitOffice of the SpokespersonOffice of the U.S. Special Coordinator for the Partnership for Global Infrastructure and InvestmentSao Tome and PrincipeThe Secretary of StateSierra LeoneThe Gambia

Back to Top