alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 17,020.

#### The Ætna Life Insurance Company of Hartford, Connecticut, et al. *v.*Benson.

-Appellate *Procedure.*— Dismissal *of Appeal.*— ■Superior Court.— *Record.*— An appeal to the supreme court, from a judgment of the superior court at general term, affirming a judgment of such court at special term, will be dismissed, where the record does not disclose what judgment, if any, was entered at special term.

From the Marion Superior Court.

*Ayres & Jones*and *A. T. Beck,*for appellants.

*324Filed May 28, 1895;

petition to reinstate overruled, October 16, 1895.

*R. N. Lamb*and *R. Hill,*for appellee.

Howard, C. J.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the general term of the Marion Superior Court, affirming a judgment of said court at special term. The record, however, fails to disclose what judgment, if any,, was entered at special term. A finding of facts, with, conclusions of law in favor of appellee is shown; hut the judgment, if any there were, does not appear. We are therefore unable to determine whether the judgment of the court at general term was correct or not, inasmuch as an appeal to the general term could be taken, only from a final judgment at special term, which final judgment should be set out in the record. *Northcutt*v. *Buckles,*60 Ind. 577; *Wingo*v. *State,*99 Ind. 343 ; Gray v. *Singer, Admr.,*137 Ind. 257; Elliott App. Proced. sections 81, 96; Elliott Gen. Prac., sections 1015, 1018, 1035, 1056. There is therefore no question presented, for our consideration.

The appeal is dismissed.
§ 1004.10 Statutory obligations of practitioners and other persons. It is the obligation of any health care practitioner or other person who furnishes or orders health care services that may be reimbursed under the Medicare or State health care programs to ensure, to the extent of his or her or its authority, that those services are— ( a ) Provided economically and only when, and to the extent, medically necessary;
( b ) Of a quality that meets professionally recognized standards of health care; and
( c ) Supported by evidence of medical necessity and quality in the form and fashion and at such time that the reviewing QIO may reasonably require (including copies of the necessary documentation and evidence of compliance with pre-admission or pre-procedure review requirements) to ensure that the practitioner or other person is meeting the obligations imposed by section 1156(a) of the Act.
#### Felix Solomon, Respondent, *v.*Carrie Meyers et al., Appellants.

Appeal from a judgment of the Municipal Court, fourth district, borough of Manhattan, New York city.

Wasserman *&*Jacobus, for appellants.

A. P. Wagener, for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

The question of fact involved in this- case was a very close one, and was decided by the jury in favor of the plaintiff. It cannot be said that their verdict was against the weight of evidence, and it should not, therefore, be disturbed. The judge’s charge fairly presented the issue which was to be determined, and correctly instructed the jury upon the law of the case. We have examined the exceptions taken by the counsel for the defendants *761■which are disclosed by the record, and are of the opinion that they do not disclose error -for which the judgment should be reversed. Judgment affirmed, with costs. .

Present: Beekman, P. J., Gildersleeve and Giegerich, JJ.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
To the Board of Directors and Stockholders
of Guaranty Bancshares Holding Corporation
Morgan City, Louisiana


    We consent to the inclusion of our report dated January 12,
1996, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets as of
December 31, 1995 and 1994, and the related consolidated statements
of income, changes in stockholders' equity, and cash flows for the
years ended December 31, 1995, and 1994, and 1993, which report
appears in the 1995 Annual Report of Guaranty Bancshares Holding
Corporation.




                      Darnall, Sikes, Kolder, Frederick & Rainey 


Morgan City, Louisiana
March 18, 1996
<PAGE>

                                                             EXHIBIT 10.58


                      DESCRIPTION OF CHIRON'S 1996
              EXECUTIVE OFFICER VARIABLE COMPENSATION PROGRAM

     The compensation of Chiron's executive officers (including annual
variable cash compensation) is determined by the Compensation Committee of
the Board of Directors.  For 1996, the Compensation Committee continued the
Company's approach that base salaries for executive officers generally should
be targeted to the median (50th percentile) of salaries for benchmark
positions in comparator companies.  Variable cash compensation for executive
officers overall was targeted to yield total cash compensation at the 50th
percentile, but with the opportunity to receive total cash up to the 75th
percentile, as shown by comparative data, based upon individual, business
unit, and overall Company performance.

     In evaluating the Company's overall performance in 1996, the Committee
reviewed the quantitative Measurement Standard adopted by the Board pursuant
to the Governance Agreement with Novartis (successor to Ciba-Geigy, Ltd.).
The Measurement Standard included: (i) relative total stockholder return
measured against two indices of comparator companies, (ii) revenue and
earning performance, and, (iii) measures of innovation based principally
upon accomplishment of specific milestones.  While the Committee found the
Measurement Standard to have been satisfied for 1996, it noted that the
Company's overall performance against these quantitative measures was
disappointing, principally because of low relative stock price appreciation.
The

<PAGE>

Committee also evaluated the Company's performance from a qualitative
perspective and concluded that continued strategic progress by the Company,
particularly in integrating and positioning each of its business units for
sustainable and profitable growth and to play an important role in the
markets it serves, balanced the quantitative measures discussed above, with
the result that the component of executive officer compensation that depends
upon overall Company performance was slightly above the target level for 1996.

     The Committee also reviewed management's quantitative assessment of the
performance of each business unit in 1996 as measured by the specific
"performance metrics" established for each unit.  These metrics included
financial targets and specific innovation milestones linking each unit's
contribution to the Company's overall performance on the Measurement Standard
described above.

     Chiron's 1995 Executive Officer Variable Cash Compensation Plan, a
performance-based plan qualifying for certain income tax benefits under
Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code, was not used in 1996.

                                - 2 -
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 3, 2018

No. 04-16-00662-CV

Melissa FUENTES, Individually, and as Next Friend of 

Victor Robert Fuentes and Isabella Elaine Fuentes, Minors,

Appellants

v.

TEXAS MUTUAL INSURANCE CO.,

Appellee

From the 112th Judicial District Court, Sutton County, Texas

Trial Court No. 5910

Honorable Pedro Gomez, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Irene Rios, Justice

The Court has considered the Appellant Beneficiaries’ Motion for Rehearing En Banc 

and the motion is hereby DENIED.

_________________________________

Irene Rios, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 3rd day of December, 2018.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
#### CHRISTIAN HEUSER, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. HERBERT R. ROTHENBERG AND ARTHUR B. VAN BUSKIRK, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

Submitted May 26, 1939

Decided September 22, 1939.

For the appellant, *Quinn & Doremus.*

For the respondent, *Lester C. Leonard.*

Per, Curiam.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court which affirmed a judgment of no cause of action against the appellant and in favor of the respondent entered in the Monmouth County Court of Common Pleas on the verdict of a jury. The action was in negligence to recover damages to appellant’s ear and for personal injuries resulting from a collision between his car and the car of the respondent Rothenberg, and driven by the respondent Van Buskirk.

The appellant obtained a rule to show cause, with no exceptions reserved, and assigned among other reasons that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. The trial court discharged the rule to show cause.

The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court and argued that the trial court committed an abuse of discretion in dis*320charging the rule to show cause. The grounds of appeal in the Supreme Court were generally the same as the reasons argued before the trial court on the return of the rule. The Supreme Court considered each of the reasons urged there, and, in particular, the ground that there was no evidence to support the verdict of the jury, and stated that it could perceive no abuse of discretion by the trial court in the discharge of the rule to show cause.

The appellant asserts before this court only one ground for reversal and that is the trial court and the Supreme Court both committed an abuse of discretion, but he confines his argument to an attack on the weight of the evidence. This court cannot concern itself with the weight of the evidence.

The fundamental rule is that in granting or refusing a new trial the trial court exercises a discretionary power and that its discretion is not ordinarily reviewable on appeal. The appellant, disregarding this well settled rule, attempts by this appeal to have this court substitute its judgment for that of the trial court. But this may not be.

The trial court heard the witnesses and had the opportunity of observing the demeanor of each of them as he testified, whereas all this court, or the Supreme Court, on appeal can do is to appraise the printed transcript of what they said. If the action of the trial court in denying a new trial is to be reviewed at all on error, it is reversible only for the plainest abuse of discretion, and it is not so plain in the present case as to call for this exceptional action on the part of an appellate court. *Courtney*v. *Garden State Lines,*120 *N. J. L.*294; *Trovalo*v. *Capozzi,*119 *Id.*147, 149; *DeFronzo*v. *Public Service Co-ordinated Transport,*116 *Id.*116; *Wasker*v. *G. R. Wood, Inc.,*114 *Id.*266.

For these reasons the judgment is affirmed.

*For*affirmance-The Chancellor, Parker, Case, Donges, Pbrskie, Porter, Heteield, Dear, Wells, Woles- Keil, Raeeerty, Hague, JJ. 12.

For reversal-None.
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Designating Supporters of DPRK Weapons Programs Together with Allies

# 									Designating Supporters of DPRK Weapons Programs Together with Allies							

Press Statement

Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of State

November 30, 2023

The United States today designated eight nationals of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) who are located in the Russian Federation, the People’s Republic of China, the Islamic Republic of Iran, and elsewhere, as well as one entity in the DPRK in response to the DPRK’s unlawful November 21 launch of a claimed military spy satellite.  That launch used ballistic missile technology in contravention of multiple United Nations Security Council resolutions and directly undermined regional and global security.

In addition, Australia, Japan, and the Republic of Korea are each announcing designations in our four countries’ first-ever coordinated imposition of sanctions on the DPRK.  The U.S. designations target a range of activities including illicit procurement, revenue generation, malicious cyber activity, and arms proliferation.  The United States will continue to pursue actors who support the DPRK’s illicit activities and work with our allies and partners to deprive the DPRK of the funds to advance its destabilizing missile and weapons of mass destruction programs.

*The Department of the Treasury’s actions are being taken pursuant to Executive Orders 13382, 13551, 13687, 13722, and 13810.**For more information on these designations, see Treasury’s**press release**.  On June 1, the U.S. Department of State, the FBI, and the National Security Agency together with partners from the Republic of Korea Ministry of Foreign Affairs, National Police Agency, and National Intelligence Service released a**cybersecurity advisory**on social engineering and hacking threats posed by the DPRK cyber group known as Kimsuky.*

Tags

Bureau of East Asian and Pacific AffairsNorth KoreaOffice of the SpokespersonThe Secretary of State

Back to Top
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

59–011 2016

114th Congress, 2d Session – – – – – – – – – – – – House Document 114–152 

DEPLOYMENT OF ADDITIONAL U.S. ARMED FORCES 

TO SOUTH SUDAN 

COMMUNICATION 

FROM

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 

TRANSMITTING

A NOTIFICATION OF A DEPLOYMENT OF ADDITIONAL U.S. ARMED 

FORCES PERSONNEL TO SOUTH SUDAN, PURSUANT TO 50 U.S.C. 

1543(c); PUBLIC LAW 93–148, SEC. 4(c); (87 STAT. 555) 

JULY 18, 2016.—Referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs and 

ordered to be printed 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGE:\Seals\Congress.#13

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(1) 

THE WHITE HOUSE, 

Washington, July 15, 2016. 

Hon. PAUL D. RYAN, 

Speaker of the House of Representatives, 

Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. SPEAKER: As reported on July 13, in response to the 

security situation in South Sudan, I ordered the deployment of additional U.S. Armed Forces personnel to South Sudan to support 

the security of U.S. personnel and of our Embassy in Juba and the 

pre-positioning in Djibouti of additional U.S. Armed Forces prepared to support the security of U.S. citizens and property in South 

Sudan. Beginning on July 14, 2016, up to approximately 200 U.S. 

Armed Forces with appropriate combat equipment, including those 

forces initially pre-positioned in Djibouti, are pre-positioning in 

Uganda for this purpose. 

It is not possible to know at this time the precise scope or the 

duration of the deployments of U.S. Armed Forces necessary to 

support the security of U.S. citizens and property in South Sudan. 

I have directed this action consistent with my responsibility to 

protect U.S. citizens both at home and abroad, and in furtherance 

of U.S. national security and foreign policy interests, pursuant to 

my constitutional authority to conduct U.S. foreign relations and as 

Commander in Chief and Chief Executive. 

I am providing this report as part of my efforts to keep the Congress fully informed, consistent with the War Powers Resolution 

(Public Law 93–148). I appreciate the support of the Congress in 

these actions. 

Sincerely, 

BARACK OBAMA. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2606

AN ACT

To prohibit the use of funds appropriated to the

appropriated by law.unless funds for such deployment are specificallyation, or as part of any implementation force,Herzegovina as part of any peacekeeping operArmed Forces in the Republic of Bosnia anddeployment on the ground of United StatesDepartment of Defense from being used for the
104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2606

AN ACT

To prohibit the use of funds appropriated to the Department

of Defense from being used for the deployment on the

ground of United States Armed Forces in the Republic

of Bosnia and Herzegovina as part of any peacekeeping

operation, or as part of any implementation force, unless

funds for such deployment are specifically appropriated

by law.
2

•HR 2606 EH

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

3 SECTION 1. PROHIBITION OF USE ON DEPARTMENT OF DE4 FENSE FUNDS FOR DEPLOYMENT ON THE

5 GROUND OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES

6 IN THE REPUBLIC OF BOSNIA AND

7 HERZEGOVINA AS PART OF ANY PEACEKEEP8 ING OPERATION OR IMPLEMENTATION

9 FORCE.

10 None of the funds appropriated or otherwise available

11 to the Department of Defense may be obligated or ex12 pended for the deployment on the ground of United States

13 Armed Forces in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina

14 as part of any peacekeeping operation, or as part of any

15 implementation force, unless funds for such deployment

16 have been specifically appropriated by a law enacted after

17 the date of the enactment of this Act.

Passed the House of Representatives November 17,

1995.

Attest:

Clerk.
# C_2006108EN.01000601.xml

| 6.5.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 108/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.5.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 108/6

---

Action brought on 23 February 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-109/06)

(2006/C 108/08)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: W. Mölls, Agent)

Applicant:

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | A declaration that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions required to implement Council Directive 2003/96/EC (1) of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity, or, in any event, by not communicating these provisions to the Commission, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

A declaration that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions required to implement Council Directive 2003/96/EC (1) of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity, or, in any event, by not communicating these provisions to the Commission, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

1

| — | An order that the Federal Republic of Germany pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

An order that the Federal Republic of Germany pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for implementing the Directive expired on 31 December 2003.

---

(1)  OJ 2003 L 283, p.51.

1

---
EXHIBIT 32
                                   ----------

                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                       AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


         The certification set forth below is hereby made solely for the purpose
of satisfying the requirements of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
and may not be relied upon or used for any other purposes.

         In connection with the Annual Report of Realmark Property Investors
Limited Partnership - II (the "Partnership") on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), I, Joseph M. Jayson, Individual General Partner and
Principal Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the
best of my knowledge:

         1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
            15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

         2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Partnership.




March 31, 2005                             /s/ Joseph M. Jayson
--------------                             --------------------
     Date                                  Joseph M. Jayson
                                           Individual General Partner and
                                           Principal Financial Officer
EX-10.41






Exhibit 10.41




THIRD

AMENDMENT TO THE

KEYCORP

SUPPLEMENTAL RETIREMENT BENEFIT PLAN




     WHEREAS, KeyCorp has established the KeyCorp Supplemental Retirement Benefit Plan (the
“Plan”), and



     WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of KeyCorp has authorized its Compensation and Organization
Committee to permit amendments to the Plan, and



     WHEREAS, the Compensation and Organization Committee of the Board of Directors of KeyCorp has
authorized the execution of this Third Amendment,



     NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to such action of the Compensation and Organization Committee, the
Plan is hereby amended as follows:




	 	1.	 	Section 1.7 is amended to delete in its entirety and to substitute therefore
the following:
	 
	 	 	 	“Incentive Compensation Award” shall mean an incentive compensation award
granted to a Plan Participant under the KeyCorp Annual Incentive Plan and/or such
other Employer-sponsored line of business incentive compensation plans that KeyCorp
in its sole discretion determines to be included herein for purposes of determining
a Participant’s Incentive Compensation Award under the Plan. For purposes of this
Section 1.7 hereof, an Incentive Compensation Award shall be deemed to be for the
year in which the Incentive Compensation Award is earned (without regard to the
actual time of payment), provided, however, that in no event shall more than one
Incentive Compensation Award be included in determining a Participant’s Salary for
any applicable year.
	 
	 	2.	 	The amendment set forth in Paragraph 1 hereof, shall be effective as of the
first day of January, 1999.
	 
	 	3.	 	Except as specifically amended herein, the Plan shall remain in full force and effect.





     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, KeyCorp has caused this Third Amendment to the Plan to be executed by its
duly authorized officer as of the first day of July, 1999



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	KEYCORP	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By:	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	Title:
Exhibit 10.1


 


February __, 2021


 


Capitol Investment Corp. V


1300 17th Street, Suite 820


Arlington, VA 22209


  


This letter is to confirm the undersigned’s
commitment that, if funds are needed by Capitol Investment Corp. V (the “Company”) and upon request by the Company,
the undersigned will provide additional loans of up to an aggregate of $[] to the Company. The undersigned understands that
if the Company does not consummate a business combination (as described in the Company's final prospectus, dated December 1, 2020),
all amounts loaned to the Company hereunder will be forgiven except to the extent that the Company has funds available to it outside
of its trust account established in connection with the Company's initial public offering.


 


 


______________________


 


 


[                 ]
-84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74 -72 -70

34 36 38 40 

### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 500 18 12 06 00 06/17 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 17 Jun 06

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.92 N 77.01 WMeters AGL