alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### STATE of Alabama ex rel. Charles GRADDICK et al. v. Edgar P. RUSSELL, Circuit Judge, et al. In re STATE of Alabama, Plaintiff, v. David Lee MOTON, Defendant.

2 Div. 249.

Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals.

June 28, 1979.

Rehearing Denied July 17, 1979.

Robert E. Morrow, Dist. Atty. and Edgar W. Greene, Deputy Dist. Atty., Fourth Judicial Circuit, Selma, for State of Alabama.

William E. Cassady, Camden, for defendant, David Lee Moton.

It is ordered that the petition for writ of mandamus be and the same is hereby granted on the basis of a petition filed in this Court asking that the writ of mandamus be directed to the Honorable Edgar P. Russell, as Presiding Judge of the 4th Judicial Circuit of Alabama, commanding and requiring him to rescind and hold for naught his order of June 1, 1979, requiring a preliminary hearing to be held in the above cause. (See *Duncan v. State,*369 So.2d 885).

TYSON, DeCARLO and BOOKOUT, JJ., concur.

BOWEN, J., dissents.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      Exhibit 11
Statement of Computation of Per Share Income (Loss)
<TABLE> 
<CAPTION> 
                                                                                   1996        1995             1994
                                                                                   ----        ----             ----
<S>                                                                          <C>           <C>           <C> 
                Income (loss) applicable to common stock                     $4,807,000    $705,000      $(1,115,000)  
                                                                             
                Weighted average number of common                                            
                         shares outstanding                                     3779364     3745760          3065786
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             
                Net income (loss) per common share and                                       
                         common share equivalents                                 $1.27       $0.19           $(0.36) 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
</TABLE> 
                (1) The after tax interest expense related to the assumed
                reduction of outstanding debt and the number of shares issuable
                on conversion of mandatory stock purchase contracts and exercise
                of stock options classified as common share equivalents are
                excluded from the computations since their effect is either
                antidilutive or immaterial.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 175 (Friday, September 11, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 46832]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-21647]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[STB Ex Parte No. 519 (Sub-No. 5)]


Renewal of National Grain Car Council

AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board.

ACTION: Notice of Intent to renew charter.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended 5 U.S.C., App. (FACA), notice is hereby given that the Surface 
Transportation Board intends to renew the charter of the National Grain 
Car Council (NGCC).

ADDRESSES: A copy of the charter is available at the Library of the 
Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20423-
0001, and on the Board's Web site at http://www.stb.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Brugman, Designated Federal 
Official, at (202) 245-0281. [Assistance for the hearing impaired is 
available through the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at: 
(800) 877-8339].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NGCC functions as a continuing working 
group to facilitate private-sector solutions and recommendations to the 
STB on matters affecting grain transportation. The NGCC functions 
solely as an advisory body, and complies with the provisions of FACA.
    The NGCC consists of approximately 40 members, excluding the 
governmental representatives. Members comprise a balanced 
representation of executives knowledgeable in the transportation of 
grain, including not less than 14 members from the Class I railroads 
(one marketing and one car management representative from each Class 
I), 7 representatives from Class II and III carriers, 14 
representatives from grain shippers and receivers, and 5 
representatives from private car owners and car manufacturers. The 
Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Board are ex officio (non-voting) 
members of the NGCC.
    The NGCC meets at least annually, and meetings are open to the 
public, consistent with the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 
94-409.
    Further information about the NGCC is available on the Board's Web 
site at http://www.stb.dot.gov and at the GSA's FACA Database--https://www.fido.gov/facadatabase/public.asp.
    This action will not significantly affect either the quality of the 
human environment or the conservation of energy resources.

    Dated: September 4, 2009.
Kulunie L. Cannon,
Clearance Clerk.
[FR Doc. E9-21647 Filed 9-10-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-01-P
EXHIBIT 23.1



INDEPENDENT AUDITORS REPORT



The Board of Directors

Palmetto Bancshares,
Inc.



We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance
sheets of Palmetto Bancshares, Inc. (the Company) as of December 31, 2003 and 2002 and the related consolidated statements of income, changes in shareholders equity and comprehensive income, and cash flows for each of the years in
the three year period ended December 31, 2003. These consolidated financial statements are the responsibility of the Companys management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these consolidated financial statements based on our
audits.



We conducted our audits in accordance with auditing
standards generally accepted in the United States of America. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the consolidated financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit
includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the
overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.



In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Palmetto
Bancshares, Inc. as of December 31, 2003 and 2002 and the results of their operations and their cash flows for each of the years in the three year period ended December 31, 2003 in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the
United States of America.



|                         
|-------------------------
|/s/    ELLIOTT DAVIS, LLC
|                         
|Elliott Davis, LLC       



Greenville, South Carolina

February 6, 2004
#### Milligan *v.*Milligan.

4-9359

235 S. W. 2d 964

Opinion delivered January 29, 1951.

*302
      *John W. Baxter,*for appellant.

*Charles D. Atkinson*and *Chas. W. Atkinson,*for appellee.

Ed. F. McFaddin, Justice.

This is a child custody contest. The parties were married in 1942; their bahy was born on May 30, 1948; the separation occurred in 1949; and a divorce decree — on the ground of indignities —was granted to the husband on February 8, 1950. As to the correctness of the divorce decree, no issue is made; but Mrs. Milligan claims that the Chancery Court erred in awarding Mr. Milligan the custody of the child, a little girl only twenty months old at the time of the decree.

A careful study convinces us that the Chancellor was correct in his decision. The evidence clearly establishes that Mrs. Milligan did not properly care for the child when she had its custody; and Mrs. Milligan’s own testimony indicates that she probably could not care for the child if the custody should now be awarded to her. On the other hand, Mr. Milligan’s mother and sister both testified that they had assisted Mr. Milligan in caring for the child while he had her custody, and the evidence preponderates to the conclusion that they will continue to do so. The mother, of course, has the right of visitation under such conditions as may be prescribed by the Chancery Court.

In what was evidently a most desperate attempt to prevent Mr. Milligan from having the custody of the child, Mrs. Milligan testified that he was not the father of it. She even named one whom she claimed to be the father. Without discussing the legal competency of such testimony,1 we point out: (1) that the Milligans were *303living together part, if not all, of the full period of gestation; and (2) that witnesses testified that the Milligans slept together in the one bed in the home. The Chancery Court found that Mr. Milligan was the father of the little girl, and the evidence supports that finding.

The decree is affirmed.

See *Morrison*v. *Nicks,*211 Ark. 261, 200 S. W. 2d 100; and *Kennedy*v. *State,*117 Ark. 113, 173 S. W. 842, L. R. A. 1916B, 1052, Ann. Cas. 1917A, 1029.
41175.

#### SEABOARD CONSTRUCTION COMPANY v. WELLS.

Russell, Judge.

This case is controlled by *Murdock v. Ledbetter-Johnson Co.,*105 Ga. App. 551 (125 SE2d 99). In that case a county road dead-ended into a State-aid road which the State Highway Department had contracted with the defendant to resurface. There was no sign indicating that the road on which plaintiff was traveling came to a dead end in the State highway, and the plaintiff overshot the intersection and struck a ditch and dirt bank which the defendant was in the process of constructing on the far side of the State highway. The opinion held that the dead-end intersection without a stop sign was in existence prior to the time the company embarked upon its work, and that the contractual duties of the defendant as to placing signs refers only to situations where the hazards were created by the defendant in resurfacing the highway, not to previously existing road hazards. For such a situation, see *Smith v. Ledbetter Bros., Inc.,*111 Ga. App. 238 (141 SE2d 322).

The only factual difference here is that the defendant construction company was engaged in resurfacing the county road entering the State-aid road rather than the State-aid road itself. Since we held in *Murdock*that the State Highway Department could not, under *Code Ann.*§ 95-604, delegate the responsibility of placing stop signs and other traffic control devices to another along the State highways, the plaintiff urges that the stop sign here, which should have been placed on the county road on which the defendant was working under its contract with the State Highway Department, does not come under that inhibition. This is true, but it is obvious that if the State Highway Department could not delegate a duty to place such signs along the roads belonging to its system, it would have no jurisdiction to delegate such duty *376as to roads *not*within its jurisdiction or a part of its road system. Both these instances are dealing with the usual traffic control devices, not with signs which the contractor has a duty to erect to warn motorists of work in progress. In both these cases, the defendant’s activities in resurfacing the road is not alleged to have been a part of the proximate cause of injury; in both, the alleged cause was negligence in failing to mark a dead-end intersection which existed prior to the defendant’s activities.

Decided March 19, 1965.

*Bouhan, Lawrence, Williams & Levy, Frank W. Seiler,*for plaintiff in error.

*Jones & Kemp, Charles M. Jones,*contra.

The trial court erred in overruling the general demurrers to the petition.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Felton, C. J., and Jordan, J., concur.*
#### § 423.301 Scope.

This subpart sets forth rules for the calculation and payment of CMS direct and reinsurance subsidies for Part D plans; the application of risk corridors and risk-sharing adjustments to payments; and retroactive adjustments and reconciliations to actual enrollment and interim payments. This subpart does not apply to fallback entities or fallback prescription drug plans.
# C_2006072EN.01000101.xml

| 24.3.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

23 March 2006

(2006/C 72/01)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2055 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 141,12 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4614 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,69175 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,3525 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5770 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 86,06 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,9670 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5757 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 28,683 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 263,00 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6960 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4293 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,8805 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 3,5076 |
| SIT | Slovenian tolar | 239,60 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 37,438 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,6107 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6783 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4049 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,3540 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,9183 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,9490 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 175,97 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 7,5537 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 9,6797 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3398 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 10 867,58 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,449 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 61,649 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 33,4760 |
| THB | Thai baht | 47,075 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2055

JPY

Japanese yen

141,12

DKK

Danish krone

7,4614

GBP

Pound sterling

0,69175

SEK

Swedish krona

9,3525

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5770

ISK

Iceland króna

86,06

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,9670

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5757

CZK

Czech koruna

28,683

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

263,00

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6960

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4293

PLN

Polish zloty

3,8805

RON

Romanian leu

3,5076

SIT

Slovenian tolar

239,60

SKK

Slovak koruna

37,438

TRY

Turkish lira

1,6107

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6783

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4049

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,3540

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,9183

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,9490

KRW

South Korean won

1 175,97

ZAR

South African rand

7,5537

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

9,6797

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3398

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

10 867,58

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,449

PHP

Philippine peso

61,649

RUB

Russian rouble

33,4760

THB

Thai baht

47,075

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 53 (Monday, March 19, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 15933]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: C1-2012-4962]

========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents 
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed 
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published 
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents. 
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each 
week.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 53 / Monday, March 19, 2012 / Rules 
and Regulations

[[Page 15933]]

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

7 CFR Part 319

[Docket No. APHIS-2007-0117]
RIN 0579-AC90

Importation of Wooden Handicrafts From China

Correction

    In rule document 2012-4962 beginning on page 12437 in the issue of 
Thursday, March 1, 2012 make the following correction:
    On page 12439, in the third column, in footnote 2, in the third 
line ``https://www.ippc.int/index.php?id=13399&tx--publication--
pi1*showUid]=133703&frompage=13399&type=publication&subtype=&L=0#item.''
 should read ``https://www.ippc.int/index.php?id=13399&tx--
publication--pi1[showUid]=133703&frompage=13399&type=publication&subtype
=&L=0#item.''

[FR Doc. C1-2012-4962 Filed 3-16-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
```
# C_2006151EN.01001301.xml

| 29.6.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 151/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.6.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 151/13

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4216 — CVC/Bocchi/De Weide Blik)

(2006/C 151/03)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 30 May 2006, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition web site (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition web site (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4216. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://ec.europa.eu/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4216. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://ec.europa.eu/eur-lex/lex)

---
Exhibit 10.19

Compensation Terms for Scott McNealy

Mr. McNealy will continue to receive his current annual base salary and shall
continue to be subject to his current bonus terms under the Bonus Plan through the remainder of fiscal year 2006. Effective on the first day of Suns fiscal 2007, July 1, 2006, Mr. McNealy will receive an annual base salary of
$1,000,000 and his annual bonus target under the Bonus Plan will be 150% of his annual base salary.

Mr. McNealy will also be granted, effective
April 27, 2006, the following equity-based compensation under the 1990 Plan:



| |  |  | an option to purchase 2,100,000 shares of Sun Common Stock at an exercise price equal to the per-share fair market value on the date of grant, which shall vest at a rate of
20% per year over five years; and
| | - |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | 350,000 restricted stock units, which shall vest pursuant to certain performance criteria.
| | - |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. McNealy will continue to participate in Suns employee benefit programs, including the VP Severance Plan. Mr. McNealy will also continue to be a party to Suns standard forms of Chief Executive
Officer Change of Control Agreement and Indemnification Agreement.

Mr. McNealy shall continue to be eligible for the Amended FY04 Officer Bonus Plan
for the Chief Executive Officer. Under this plan, Mr. McNealy will receive a bonus of $625,000 for fiscal 2004 if Sun achieves three consecutive quarters of operating profitability and year over year revenue growth on or by the end of fiscal
2007.

Finally, Sun will continue to provide Mr. McNealy with private jet access for business use.
§ 438.362 Exemption from external quality review. ( a ) *Basis for exemption.* The State may exempt an MCO from EQR if the following conditions are met: ( 1 ) The MCO has a current Medicare contract under part C of Title XVIII or under section 1876 of the Act, and a current Medicaid contract under section 1903(m) of the Act.
( 2 ) The two contracts cover all or part of the same geographic area within the State.
( 3 ) The Medicaid contract has been in effect for at least 2 consecutive years before the effective date of the exemption and during those 2 years the MCO has been subject to EQR under this part, and found to be performing acceptably for the quality, timeliness, and access to health care services it provides to Medicaid beneficiaries.
( b ) *Information on exempted MCOs.* When the State exercises this option, the State must obtain either of the following: ( 1 ) *Information on Medicare review findings.* Each year, the State must obtain from each MCO that it exempts from EQR the most recent Medicare review findings reported on the MCO including— ( i ) All data, correspondence, information, and findings pertaining to the MCO's compliance with Medicare standards for access, quality assessment and performance improvement, health services, or delegation of these activities.
( ii ) All measures of the MCO's performance.
( iii ) The findings and results of all performance improvement projects pertaining to Medicare enrollees.
( 2 ) *Medicare information from a private accrediting organization.* ( i ) If an exempted MCO has been reviewed by a private accrediting organization, the State must require the MCO to provide the State with a copy of all findings pertaining to its most recent accreditation review if that review has been used to fulfill certain requirements for Medicare external review under subpart D of part 422 of this chapter.
( ii ) These findings must include, but need not be limited to, accreditation review results of evaluation of compliance with individual accreditation standards, noted deficiencies, corrective action plans, and summaries of unmet accreditation requirements.
( c ) *Identification of exempted MCOs.* The State must annually identify, on the website required under § 438.10(c)(3) and in the same location where the EQR technical reports are posted in accordance with § 438.364(c)(2)(i), the names of the MCOs exempt from external quality review by the State, including the beginning date of the current exemption period, or that no MCOs are exempt, as appropriate.
[81 FR 27853, May 6, 2016, as amended at 85 FR 72842, Nov. 13, 2020; 89 FR 41279, May 10, 2024]
EXHIBIT 21.1



SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT



The following table sets forth all subsidiaries of the registrant, the state or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization of each, and the names
under which such subsidiaries do business as of December 31, 2005. The financial statements of all subsidiaries are included in the consolidated statements of Palmetto Bancshares, Inc. and subsidiary.



| | 1. |  | The Palmetto Bank, a South Carolina corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of Palmetto Bancshares, Inc.
| | -- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. |  | Palmetto Capital Inc., a South Carolina corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of The Palmetto Bank
| | -- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------