alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Louise Maggie Ruth YOUNG, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Nos. 78-1782, 78-1783 and 78-1784.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 4, 1979.

*833Jack 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.

After careful review, we affirm the revocation of appellant’s probation and her subsequent conviction. However, we agree with her that there are imperfections in the revocation order and in the judgment and sentence which necessitate a remand for correction.

Among the violations of probation with which appellant was charged were two concerning the failure to make payments as required by the terms of probation. The court found appellant guilty of these two violations, but it should not have done so since it did not make a finding that appellant had the ability to make the payments. *Coxon v. State,*365 So.2d 1067 (Fla.2d DCA 1979). Accordingly the court should now remove any reference to these violations from the revocation order.

At sentencing, the court ordered appellant to serve a fifteen-year prison term in case number 76-7348, a five-year prison term in case number 76-7349, and a fifteen-year prison term in case number 76-7350. However, the written judgments and sentences and the uniform custody papers reverse the terms imposed in 76-7349 and 76-7350. Consequently, the court must alter these documents so that they conform to its oral pronouncements.

HOBSON, Acting C. J., and SCHEB and OTT, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



The undersigned certify that the Annual Report on Form 10-K for
the period ended December 31, 2009, which accompanies this certification, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that the information contained in the
periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Palmetto Bancshares, Inc. at the dates and for the periods indicated. The foregoing certification is made pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350) and no purchaser or seller of securities or any other person shall be entitled to rely upon the foregoing certification for any purpose. The undersigned expressly disclaims any obligation to update
the foregoing certification except as required by law.



|                                                                 
|-----------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                 
|/s/    SAMUEL L. ERWIN                                           
|Samuel L. Erwin Chief Executive Officer Palmetto Bancshares,
Inc.
|                                                                 
|/s/    LAUREN S.
GREER                                           
|Lauren S. Greer Chief Financial Officer The Palmetto
Bank        



Dated:
February 26, 2010
Description of Executive Officer cash compensation for 2008



 Exhibit 10.31 
 ACE LIMITED 
 DESCRIPTION OF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CASH COMPENSATION 
 FOR 2008 
 Set forth below are the 2008 annual base
salaries of the Chief Executive Officer, the Chief Financial Officer and each of the three other most highly compensated executive officers in 2008 who were executive officers as of December 31, 2008 
 Evan G. Greenberg, President and Chief Executive Officer 
 $1,200,000

 Philip V. Bancroft, Chief Financial Officer 
 $670,000

 Robert Cusumano, General Counsel and Secretary 
 $515,000 
 Brian E. Dowd, Chief Executive Officer Insurance-North American 
 $700,000 
 John Keogh, Chief Executive Officer ACE Overseas General 
 $675,000 
 In addition to the above, these officers receive an annual bonus
for 2008 that is determined in the first quarter of 2009 and perquisites and other personal benefits that may include housing allowances, personal use of the Company aircraft, relocation expenses, club memberships, private drivers, financial
planning, car allowance or Company leased vehicle, home security, personal apartment costs and long service awards, tax gross ups and contributions to retirement plans. The annual base salaries for 2009 for these officers is determined in the first
quarter of 2009.
# CA2005172EN.01000401.xml

| 12.7.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CA 172/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.7.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CA 172/4

---

Corrigendum to notice of open competitions EPSO/AD/23-24/05 to constitute a reserve pool from which to recruit administrators (junior auditors — A*5) and (senior audit officers — A*9) of Cypriot, Czech, Estonian, Hungarian, Lithuanian, Latvian, Maltese, Polish, Slovene and Slovak citizenship

(Official Journal of the European Union
  C 135 A of 2 June 2005
  )

C 135 A of 2 June 2005

(2005/C 172 A/02)

On page 34, heading C, point 1, footnote 6:

for:

for:

‘No later than 12.00 noon, Brussels time, on 7 July 2005’,

read:

read:

‘No later than 12.00 noon, Brussels time, on 28 July 2005’;

on page 35, heading C, point 1:

for:

for:

‘The closing date for inscription is 7 July 2005. Online registration will not be possible after 12.00 noon Brussels time on that day’,

read:

read:

‘The closing date for inscription is 28 July 2005. Online registration will not be possible after 12.00 noon Brussels time on that day’.

---
#### § 423.576 Effect of a coverage determination.

The coverage determination is binding on the Part D plan sponsor and the enrollee unless it is reviewed and revised under §§ 423.580 through 423.604 and §§ 423.2000 through 423.2140 or is reopened and revised under § 423.1978.

[70 FR 4525, Jan. 28, 2005, as amended at 74 FR 65363, Dec. 9, 2009; 84 FR 19872, May 7, 2019]
Amendment to Retirement and Savings Plan dated March 31, 2008



 Exhibit 10.18 to 2008 10-K 
 AMENDMENT TO 
 CONVERGYS CORPORATION RETIREMENT AND SAVINGS PLAN 
 (EGTRRA RESTATEMENT) 
 The Convergys
Corporation Retirement and Savings Plan is hereby amended effective as provided below in the following respects: 
 1. Effective as of
April 1, 2008, the first sentence of Section 5.2 of the Plan is amended to read as follows: 
 For each payroll period beginning on
or after April 1, 2008, the Participating Companies shall contribute to the Plan for each eligible Participant who (a) has satisfied the eligibility requirements for Employer Contributions under Sections 4.1 and 4.2, and (b) who
authorized salary deferral contributions under Section 5.1 for a pay period, an amount equal to 100% of the first five percent of Covered Compensation with respect to which salary deferral contributions were authorized for the pay period.

 2. Effective as of April 1, 2008, a new paragraph is added to the end of Section 6.9 to read as follows: 
 Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this Section 6.9, the Plan shall not satisfy the “safe harbor” requirements described in
Section 401(k)(12) of the Code and this Section 6.9 for the 2008 Plan Year. The limitations on salary deferral contributions of Highly Compensated Employees described in Section 6.2 and the limitations on employer contributions of
Highly Compensated Employees described in Section 6.3 shall apply for the 2008 Plan Year. The Employer shall provide each eligible employee with a notice describing (i) the consequences of the change in the matching contribution formula
for the 2008 Plan Year, including that the change discontinues the “safe harbor” for the 2008 Plan Year, (ii) procedures for changing salary deferral contributions under the Plan, and (iii) the effective date of the change. Such
notice shall be provided (and, for purposes of documentation, has been provided) prior to March 1, 2008. 
 3. Effective as of
March 1, 2008, the first sentence of Section 7.5 is amended to read as follows: 
 Before each annual or special meeting of the
shareholders of Convergys, the Trustee shall provide or cause to be provided to each Participant, in the manner used to provide information to other shareholders of Convergys, proxy solicitation materials provided to shareholders of Convergys,
together with a form requesting confidential instructions to the Trustee on how to vote the number of Convergys Shares credited to the Participant’s Plan Accounts. 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Convergys Corporation has hereunto caused its name to be subscribed this 31st day of
March, 2008. 
  

			
	CONVERGYS CORPORATION
		
	By:	 	/s/ David F. Dougherty
	Title:	 	Chief Executive Officer
§ 425.700 General rules. ( a ) CMS shares aggregate reports with the ACO.
( b ) CMS shares beneficiary identifiable data with ACOs on the condition that the ACO, its ACO participants, ACO providers/suppliers, and other individuals or entities performing functions or services related to the ACO's activities observe all relevant statutory and regulatory provisions regarding the appropriate use of data and the confidentiality and privacy of individually identifiable health information and comply with the terms of the data use agreement described in this subpart.
( c ) The ACO must not limit or restrict appropriate sharing of medical record data with providers and suppliers both within and outside the ACO in accordance with applicable law.
# C_2006147EN.01001101.xml

| 23.6.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 147/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.6.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 147/11

---

CALL FOR PROPOSALS PIL-2006

CALL FOR PROPOSALS PIL-2006

(2006/C 147/08)

The Commission intends to award grants to promote pilot projects on secure rest places along the trans-European road network as announced in the DG TREN work programme for 2006. Information on this call for proposals is available on the following Internet address:

http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/energy_transport/grants/proposal_en.htm

---
#### Dixie Culvert Manufacturing Company *v.*Richardson.

4-9398

236 S. W. 2d 713

Opinion delivered February 26, 1951.

*428
      *J. 11. Spears, Malcolm W. Gannaway*and *James B. Gannaway,*for appellant.

*Fletcher Long*and *H. M. McCastlain,*for appellee.

George Rose Smith, J.

This suit was brought by the three appellees, Mr. and Mrs. H. C. Richardson and J. W. Buck, for personal injuries sustained when a car in which they were riding struck a truck owned by the appellant. Buck, who owned the car, also sought property damages. The jury returned verdicts for all three plaintiffs, assessing Buck’s damages at $500, Richardson’s at $1,500, and Mrs. Richardson’s at “no damage.” The court entered judgments on the verdicts, including a judgment for Mrs. Richardson for her costs. "We affirm the latter judgment, as Mrs. Richardson has not cross-appealed, and the appellant has waived any error in the judgment for costs by failing to argue the point.

It is contended that the appellant was entitled to a directed verdict. The collision occurred on a rainy night at a point on U. S. Highway 70 some ten miles west of Forrest City. The appellant’s truck, loaded with 25,000 pounds of steel, had lost a wheel, and its driver was compelled to leave it on the traveled portion of the highway while he went for help. In this situation a flare should be placed approximately 100 feet behind the disabled vehicle. Ark. Stats., 1947, § 75-722. There was testimony that appellant’s driver put the flare only ten feet down the highway. A state policeman estimated the distance as about twenty-five feet. Richardson, who was driving the Buck car, testified that he did not see the stalled truck until it loomed up fifty or seventy-five feet in front of him, when it was too late to avoid a collision. *429He did not see the flare until he got ont of the oar after the accident; it was then burning smoldly. On this testimony the trial court correctly submitted to the jury the issues of negligence and contributory negligence.

The court erred, however, in permitting the appellant’s driver to be questioned about a conviction for speeding a month after the accident and in telling the jury that this conviction might be considered as bearing upon the driver’s credibility. It may be doubted whether the crime of speeding involves enough immorality to make a conviction relevant to the question of veracity, under common law principles. See Wigmore on Evidence, § 926. But in this State the matter is governed by statute. Section 75-1012 provides that a conviction for a traffic violation less than a felony shall not affect the offender’s credibility as a witness in any civil or criminal proceeding. Speeding is not a felony. Sections 75-601 • and 75-1004. It was therefore error for this conviction to go to the jury on the question of credibility.

Reversed and remanded as to Richardson and Buck.
HomeDSS Press Releases...Honduran national gets 50 years for kidnapping and raping 15-year-old

# 									Honduran national gets 50 years for kidnapping and raping 15-year-old							

DSS Releases

December 4, 2023

For Immediate Release – December 4, 2023

Click here to read more about this

 

Tags

DSS ReleasesHondurasHuman TraffickingHuman TraffickingTexas

Back to Top
<TABLE> <S> <C>




<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
PRINCETON NATIONAL BANCORP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARY CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND
STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          31,133
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         360,483
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                23,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    109,530
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          21,396
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            21,643
<LOANS>                                        270,837
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,800
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 478,911
<DEPOSITS>                                     407,838
<SHORT-TERM>                                    24,296
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              4,171
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        20,699
<OTHER-SE>                                      21,907
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 478,911
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 24,705
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                7,223
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   723
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                32,651
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              15,297
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              16,504
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           16,147
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      337
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  96
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 13,974
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,679
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       5,679
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,259
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.08
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.12
<LOANS-NON>                                      1,390
<LOANS-PAST>                                        16
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                    279
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,830
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    1,018
<RECOVERIES>                                       651
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,800
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,568
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            232
        



</TABLE>
Exhibit 23

            Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Board of Directors
Cass Information Systems, Inc.:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements
(Nos. 333-44499, 033-91456, 033-91568, 333-44497 and 333-143411) on Form S-8 of
Cass Information Systems, Inc. (the Company) of our reports dated March 11,
2009, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of the Company as of
December 31, 2008 and 2007, and the related consolidated statements of income,
cash flows, and shareholders' equity and comprehensive income for each of the
years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2008, and the effectiveness of
internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2008, which reports
appear in the December 31, 2008 annual report on Form 10-K of Cass Information
Systems, Inc.

As discussed in notes 1 and 12 to the consolidated financial statements, the
Company adopted Statement of Financial Accounting Standard No. 158, Employers'
Accounting for Defined Benefit Pension and Other Postretirement Plans, as of
December 31, 2006.

/s/KPMG LLP

St. Louis, Missouri
March 11, 2009
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7177

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ALFRED CALDWELL,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District

Judge. (CR-92-113-N, CA-97-452-2)

Submitted: January 21, 1999 Decided: February 9, 1999

Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alfred Caldwell, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Marie Everhart, Assistant

United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Alfred Caldwell seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 &

Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny the

motion for appointment of counsel, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district

court. See United States v. Caldwell, Nos. CR-92-113-N; CA-97-452-

2 (E.D. Va. June 30, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED
# C_2006121EN.01001201.xml

| 20.5.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 121/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.5.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 121/12

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 6 March 2006 — Marcuccio v Commission

(Case T-176/04) (1)

1

(Officials - Social security benefits - Access to information about the existence of a medical report - Transmission after the action was brought - No need to adjudicate)

(2006/C 121/20)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: A. Distante, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and C. Berardis-Kayser, acting as Agents, assisted by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Application for, in the first place, annulment of the Commission's implied decision rejecting the applicant's request to be sent a medical report or the written confirmation that that report does not exist; in the second place, annulment of the Commission's implied decision rejecting the complaint made about the rejection of that request and, in the third place, a declaration of the applicant's right to have the claims in his request and in his complaint granted.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no further need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no further need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | The Commission is to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant before the notification of the defence. The applicant is to bear his own costs incurred after the notification of the defence. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Commission is to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant before the notification of the defence. The applicant is to bear his own costs incurred after the notification of the defence.

---

(1)  OJ C 179, 10.7.2004.

1

---
§ 417.456 Refunds to Medicare enrollees. ( a ) *Definitions.* As used in this section— *Amounts incorrectly collected* means amounts collected that are in excess of those specified in § 417.452. It includes amounts collected when the enrollee was believed not entitled to Medicare benefits if the enrollee is later determined to have been entitled to Medicare benefits and CMS is liable for payments as specified in § 417.450.
*Other amounts due* means amounts due a Medicare enrollee for services obtained outside the HMO or CMP if they were— ( 1 ) Emergency services;
( 2 ) Urgently needed services for which the HMO or CMP has assumed financial responsibility; or
( 3 ) On appeal under subpart Q of this part, found to be services the enrollee was entitled to have furnished by the HMO or CMP.
( b ) *Basic commitment.* An HMO or CMP must agree to refund all amounts incorrectly collected from its Medicare enrollees, or from others on behalf of the enrollees, and any other amounts due the enrollees or others on their behalf.
( c ) *Refund by lump sum payment.* An HMO or CMP must make refunds to its current and former Medicare enrollees, or to others who have made payments on behalf of enrollees, by lump sum payment for the following: ( 1 ) Incorrectly collected amounts that were not collected as premiums.
( 2 ) Other amounts due.
( 3 ) All amounts due, if the HMO or CMP is going out of business.
( d ) *Refund by premium adjustment or lump sum payment or both.* An HMO or CMP may make refund by adjustment of future premiums, by lump sum payment, or by a combination of both methods, for amounts that were incorrectly collected in the form of premiums or through a combination of premium payments and other charges.
( e ) *Refund when enrollee has died or cannot be located.* If an enrollee has died or cannot be located after reasonable effort by the HMO or CMP, the HMO or CMP must make the refund in accordance with State law.
( f ) *Reduction by CMS.* If the HMO or CMP does not make refund in accordance with paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section by the end of the contract period following the contract period during which an amount was determined to be due an enrollee, CMS reduces its payment to the HMO or CMP by the amounts incorrectly collected or otherwise due, and arranges for those amounts to be paid to the Medicare enrollee.
[50 FR 1346, Jan. 10, 1985, as amended at 58 FR 38079, July 15, 1993; 60 FR 45678, Sept. 1, 1995]
Home2022 Treaties and Agreements...Guatemala (22-928.5) – Agreement Regarding Mutual Assistance Between Customs Administrations

# 									Guatemala (22-928.5) – Agreement Regarding Mutual Assistance Between Customs Administrations							

TIAS

Office of Treaty Affairs

September 28, 2022

Law Enforcement:  Customs Administrations

Signed at Washington April 22, 2022; entered into force September 28, 2022.

 
Download Agreement						 [1 MB]

Tags

GuatemalaLaw EnforcementTreaties

## Related Articles

-  											 									
Read more
 

Back to Top