alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
42367.

#### JUHAN v. C. W. MATTHEWS CONTRACTING COMPANY, INC.

Hall, Judge.

After a verdict for the defendant in an automobile negligence case, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment overruling her motion for new trial. The case was tried before August 1, 1965, when the Appellate Practice Act of 1965 became effective. Ga. L. 1965, pp. 18, 31, 39, 40.

1. The trial court did not err in failing to charge without request on the law of accident, pleaded as a defense, and on joint and concurrent negligence of the defendant and the driver of the automobile in which the plaintiff was a passenger. Though the evidence may have authorized charges on these subjects, they would have been favorable to the defendant and the plaintiff could not have been harmed by their omission. Nor could the plaintiff have been harmed by the court’s failure to charge without request on the subject of agency, since the defendant admitted and there was no dispute that the driver of the defendant’s truck, which collided with the plaintiff’s husband’s car, was the defendant’s agent and was driving on the defendant’s business.

2. The trial court did not err in failing to charge without request on the subject of negligence per se and the statute requiring every motor vehicle to be equipped with effective brakes and to have two separate means of applying the brakes. Ga. L. 1953, Nov. Sess., pp. 556, 611, as amended, Ga. L. 1965, pp. 406, 407 *(Code Ann.*§ 68-1715). There was evidence that the defendant’s brakes were not functioning properly and the evidence was uncontradicted that the only braking system on the truck was a foot pedal. The plaintiff’s petition alleged that the defendant was negligent in *609failing to have proper working and functioning brakes on said truck. It did not allege that this failure violated any statute or ordinance or constituted negligence per se. Though the evidence would have supported charges as contended by the plaintiff had they been requested, it was not error for the court to omit such charges in the absence of requests. *Brown v. Kirkland,*108 Ga. App. 651, 653 (134 SE2d 472).

Argued October 3, 1966

Decided November 14, 1966.

*Milton Grubbs, Scott Walters, Jr.,*for appellant.

*Reed, Flournoy & Tate, Robert B. Flournoy, Jr., Raymond M. Reed,*for appellee.

3. The trial court did not err in overruling grounds of the plaintiff’s motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence since these special grounds did not comply with the requirements of *Code*§ 70-205. *Stone v. Carter,*218 Ga. 92, 93 (126 SE2d 617); *Johnson v. Oliver,*138 Ga. 347, 348 (75 SE 245).

4. The trial court did not err in overruling the plaintiff’s motion for new trial on any of the special grounds or on the general grounds. *Bibb Cigar &c. Co. v. McSwain,*95 Ga. App. 659, 661 (98 SE2d 128).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Nichols, P. J., and Deen, J., concur.*
<PAGE>

                                                           50 Briar Hollow Lane
                                                           Suite 515 West
                                                           Houston, TX 77027
                                                           Phone:  713/621-9424
                                                           Fax:  713/621-9492


                    ROCKPORT GROUP OF TEXAS, INC.




October 31, 1997




Mr. William W. Wollenberg
225 Furrow Way
Monument, CO 80132


Dear Bill:


This letter is a formal offer for you to join our staff to lead the sales and
marketing efforts for our company. We agree to the following deal, among the
specific points of our proposed agreement are:


         1.    Title - Executive Vice President and report to Harry Neer

         2.    Salary base - $240,000 per year

         3.    Three year severance agreement

         4.    Commissions:

                    Direct sales - 7% for first 18 months of paid revenue

                                   5% for next 18 months

                                   3% for the life of contract

                    Indirect sales - 2% override on all sales

         5.    Bonus is a combination of stock and/or cash. The bonus will be
               based on 60% of the marketing/sales objectives and 40% of the
               company reaching its EBITDA. We are defining reaching EBITDA as
               80% or greater of budgeted EBITDA.

         6.    Vesting of stock will be based on a three year period and
               vesting 1/3 each year. Stock vesting is based on Number 5 of
               this letter.

         7.    Your benefits will be identical to the rest of the Executive
               Staff.

         8.    Business expenses - the policy of the company is to ensure you
               do not lose money on travel nor gain money from your travel.


                                       1

<PAGE>

Upon accepting this letter of intent and agreement, an Employment Contract
will be submitted to you for review, negotiations and execution. If you are in
agreement with all the above, indicate such by signing where indicated below.

Sincerely,



/s/ Harry M. Neer
-----------------
Harry M. Neer

Agreed to and accepted this 1st day of November, 1997.




/s/ William W. Wollenberg
-------------------------
William W. Wollenberg











                                       2
HomeReportsBureau of Economic and Business Affairs2023 Fiscal Transparency Report…Haiti

# 					2023 Fiscal Transparency Report: Haiti			

 In this section										

                -  Government-by-Government Assessments: Haiti  

## Government-by-Government Assessments: Haiti 

During the review period, the government published its enacted budget online within a reasonable period.However, the executive budget proposal was not published online within a reasonable period, and because the finance ministry’s website was down at the end of the review period it was unclear whether the end-of-year report had been published online within a reasonable period.Budget documents were not prepared according to internationally accepted principles.Limited information on debt obligations was publicly available.Publicly available budget documents did not provide a substantially complete picture of the government’s planned expenditures and revenues.While actual revenues and expenditures did not reasonably correspond to those in the enacted budget, the government published a revised budget.The government maintained off-budget accounts that were not subject to the same oversight and audit as other expenditures.Topline military budget information was included in the budget, but it was not subject to parliamentary or civilian public oversight.The supreme audit institution did not meet international standards of independence.It partially reviewed the government’s accounts, but it did not make its report publicly available within a reasonable period.

Haiti’s fiscal transparency would be improved by:

-  Publishing an executive budget proposal and end-of-year report within a reasonable period;
-  Ensuring the budget provides a substantially full picture by including major sources of revenue, expenditure, and debt obligations, including major state-owned enterprise debt;
-  Preparing budget documents according to internationally accepted principles;
-  Producing and publishing a supplemental budget when actual revenues and expenditures do not correspond to those in the enacted budget;
-  Eliminating off-budget accounts or subjecting them to adequate oversight and audit;
-  Subjecting military budgets to parliamentary or civilian public oversight; and
-  Ensuring the supreme audit institution meets international standards of independence, audits the entire annual executed budget, and publishes its findings within a reasonable period.

## View report by:

### On This Page

                    -  Government-by-Government Assessments: Haiti  

Tags

Bureau of Economic and Business AffairsBureau of Western Hemisphere AffairsDivision for International Finance and DevelopmentHaiti

Back to Top

                - White House
                - USA.gov
                - Office of the Inspector General
                - Archives
                - Contact Us

follow us
FacebookXInstagramYouTubeFlickrGovDelivery

              - Privacy Policy
              - Accessibility Statement
              - Copyright Information
              - FOIA
              - No FEAR Act

## U.S. Department *of* State

#### The Lessons of 1989: Freedom and Our Future
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, as Chief Financial Officer of MSD Investment Corp. (the “Company”), does hereby certify that to the undersigned’s knowledge:

(1) the Company’s Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2022 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and


(2) the information contained in the Company’s Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2022 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


Date: March 23, 2023

| |     |                        
| | --- | -----------------------
| | By: | /s/ Brian S. Williams  
| |     | Brian S. Williams      
| |     | Chief Financial Officer





---
# Official Journal L 230/2011

| | ISSN 1725-2555
  doi:10.3000/17252555.L_2011.230.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 230 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 547 September 2011 |

ISSN 1725-2555

doi:10.3000/17252555.L_2011.230.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 230

English edition

Legislation

Volume 547 September 2011

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 891/2011 of 1 September 2011 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 194/2008 renewing and strengthening the restrictive measures in respect of Burma/Myanmar | 1 |
| | | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 892/2011 of 6 September 2011 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables | 67 |
| | | DECISIONS |
| | | 2011/529/EU |
| | * | Commission Decision of 20 April 2011 on measure C 37/04 (ex NN 51/04), implemented by Finland for Componenta Oyj
  (notified under document C(2011) 2559)

   (1) | 69 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 891/2011 of 1 September 2011 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 194/2008 renewing and strengthening the restrictive measures in respect of Burma/Myanmar

1

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 892/2011 of 6 September 2011 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

67

DECISIONS

2011/529/EU

*

Commission Decision of 20 April 2011 on measure C 37/04 (ex NN 51/04), implemented by Finland for Componenta Oyj
  (notified under document C(2011) 2559)

   (1)

(notified under document C(2011) 2559)

69

| | | Corrigenda |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | * | Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Decision 2011/513/EU of 19 August 2011 authorising the placing on the market of Phosphatidylserine from soya phospholipids as a novel food ingredient under Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 215, 20.8.2011) | 78 |

Corrigenda

*

Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Decision 2011/513/EU of 19 August 2011 authorising the placing on the market of Phosphatidylserine from soya phospholipids as a novel food ingredient under Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 215, 20.8.2011)

(OJ L 215, 20.8.2011)

78

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
November 16, 2015

Dear Messrs. Lyons and Anderson:

This letter is to inform y ou that the following informati on is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA

− 2015

− 3286). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your petition.

 Provide a copy of the Motion Picture a nd Television Operations Manual (MPTOM) which is required by Order 8900.1, Volume 3, Chapter 8, Section 1. If you wish for us to proceed without this manual and remove clos ed-set filming from your proposed operation please inform of us of your intention by the requested response date listed below.

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov and submit any proprietary information to the FAA Headquarters or electronically via email to 333exemptions@faa.gov. If you want us to process your request any further, we must receive the information desc ribed above by 11/30/15. If we do not receive the information, we will close the doc ket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-2999.

Sincerely,
/s/
Brenda Robeson Program Analyst
Editorial Note on Part 1102
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part appear at 83 FR 43739, Aug. 28, 2018.

§ 1102.101 Definitions. The following definitions shall apply for purposes of this subpart: ( a ) The terms *individual, maintain, record, system of records,* and *routine use* are defined for purposes of these rules as they are defined in 5 U.S.C. 552a(a)(2), (a)(3), (a)(4), (a)(5) and (a)(7).
( b ) ASC or Subcommittee means the Appraisal Subcommittee of the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council.
( c ) *Privacy Act Officer* means the ASC's Associate Director for Administration or such other ASC staff officer, other than the Executive Director, duly designated by the ASC's Executive Director.
Editorial Note on Part 36
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 36 appear at 61 FR 7217, Feb. 27, 1996, and 86 FR 51275, Sept. 15, 2021.

§ 36.4379 Payment of insurance. ( a ) Upon the continuance of a default for a period of three months, the holder may proceed to establish the net loss, after giving the notices prescribed in §§ 36.4317 and 36.4350 if security is available. The net loss shall be reported to the Secretary with proper claim, whereupon the holder shall be entitled to payment of the claim within the amount then available for such payment under the payee's related insurance account. Subject to the provisions of the paragraph (b) of this section and to § 36.4375(b) a supplemental claim for any balance of an insurance loss may be filed at any time within 5 years after the date of the original claim.
( b ) The basis of the claim for an insured loss shall consist in the unrealized principal or the amount paid for the obligation, if less, plus unrealized interest to the date of claim or the date of sale whichever is earlier, and those expenses, if any, allowable under § 36.4314, but subject to proper credits because of payments, set-off, proceeds of security or otherwise, provided that if there is no liquidation of security the claim shall not include an accrual of interest for a period in excess of 6 months from the date of the first uncured default.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3703(c)(1))
[73 FR 6310, Feb. 1, 2008. Redesignated at 75 FR 33705, June 15, 2010, as amended at 80 FR 34319, June 16, 2015]
#### § 1202.12 Is there anything else I need to know about FOIA procedures?

This FOIA regulation does not and shall not be construed to create any right or to entitle any person, as of right, to any service or to the disclosure of any record to which such person is not entitled under the FOIA. This regulation only provides procedures for requesting records under the FOIA.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Alton Thomas Davis, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

November 22, 2010 

y1115 

Order 

 

November 22, 2010 

141285 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 141285 

 COA: 297283 

Kent CC: 08-009854-FH 

ROBERT EARL REYBURN, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 12, 2010 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Record of Ex Parte Contacts

Docket No. FAA-2012-0645 Directorate Identifier: 2011-NM-052-AD

With whom outside the FAA has this AD action been discussed (i.e., Design Approval Holder, 

manufacturer, ATA, NBAA, RAA, AOPA, ALPA, GAMA, etc)? (You might need to submit a separate 

record to the Rules Docket. The AD Manual defines “Ex Parte Contacts.”)

ORGANIZATION PERSON CONTACTED DATE RESPONSE

Boeing Mr. G.K. Dial – FAA 

concurs with Boeing’s 

compliance 

recommendation

December 10, 2007 No response.

ATA Joe White March 7, 2011 No response.

Boeing Bernard Frakes, AR March 7, 2011 Other. List below.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Other/Additional Information: Bernard Frakes agreed that there are no outstanding AMOCs that 

would be of concern. AD 99-08-23 only pertains to the web-to-Y-chord attachment, so the scope 

of any existing AMOCs is limited.
#### § 1209.100 Scope.

Subpart F of this part applies to informal hearings afforded to any entity-affiliated party who has been suspended, removed, or prohibited from further participation in the business affairs of a regulated entity by a notice or order issued by the Director under section 1377(h) of the Safety and Soundness Act (12 U.S.C. 4636a(h)).
----

            COUNCIL DECISION         

of 18 January 2005         

establishing, in accordance with Article 104(8) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, whether effective action has been taken by the Hellenic Republic in response to recommendations of the Council in accordance with Article 104(7) of that Treaty

(2005/334/EC)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 104(8) thereof,

Having regard to the recommendation from the Commission,

Whereas:

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The Hellenic Republic has not taken effective action in response to the Council recommendation of 5 July 2004 within the period laid down in that recommendation.

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to the Hellenic Republic.

Done at Brussels, 18 January 2005.

For the Council

The President

J.-C. JUNCKER            

----

(1)OJ L 209, 2.8.1997, p. 6.

(2)OJ C 236, 2.8.1997, p. 1.

(3)OJ L 389, 30.12.2004, p. 25.

----
#### § 48.655 Individual.

*Individual* means a natural person.
#### ISELIN ET AL. v. UNITED STATES

[60 C. Cls. 255; 271 U. S. 136]

Judgment was rendered in favor of the United States in the court below. On appeal the judgment was affirmed, the Supreme Court deciding:

1. Offer by letter to buy airplane linen from the Government on terms specified, including a warranty of quality, *held*not to have been accepted by a letter, on behalf of the Government, not acknowledging the other, differing in terms, and presumably based on intervening negotiations not disclosed.

2. An acceptance upon terms varying from those offered is a rejection of the offer.

Mr. Chief Justice Taft

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court May 3, 1926.
EX-10.56



 Exhibit 10.56 
  

			
	



		  
 111 Eighth Avenue

7th Floor

New York, NY 10011
 212.624.3700


 As of March 25, 2015 

David Schlanger 
 c/o WebMD Health Corp. 

111 Eighth Avenue 
 New York, NY 10011-5201 

Dear David: 
 Reference is made to the grant of
(i) a nonqualified option to purchase 80,000 shares of WebMD Health Corp.’s (the “Company”) Common Stock made to you on March 25, 2015 (the “2015 Option”) as evidenced by the Option Agreement dated March 25,
2015 (the “Option Agreement”) and (ii) 40,000 shares of the Company’s restricted Common Stock made to you on the same date (the “2015 Restricted Stock Grant” and collectively with the 2015 Option, the “2015
Grants”) and evidenced by a Restricted Stock Agreement dated March 25, 2015 (the “Restricted Stock Agreement”). 
  

	 	1.	Impact of Certain Terminations following a Change of Control. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Option Agreement or the Restricted Stock Agreement, in the event of the termination
of your employment by the Company without Cause or by you for Good Reason (as such terms are defined in your Employment Agreement with the Company dated May 7, 2013, as amended, (the “Employment Agreement”)), in either case following
a Change of Control of the Company (as defined in the Company’s Amended and Restated 2005 Long-Term Incentive Plan): 

  

	 	(a)	the 2015 Option, to the extent unvested, shall be deemed vested on the date of termination and shall remain outstanding as if you remained in the employ of the Company through the expiration of the originally scheduled
term of the 2015 Option; and 

  

	 	(b)	the 2015 Restricted Stock Grant, to the extent unvested, shall be deemed vested on the date of termination. 


The acceleration of vesting of the 2015 Grants and the continued exercisability of the 2015 Option are expressly conditioned on (i) a
release of claims (as described in the Employment Agreement) being executed by you and becoming effective and (ii) your continued compliance with the restrictive covenant agreements you have signed in connection with your employment. 








	 	2.	Effect on Agreements. Except as set forth herein, the Option Agreement and the Restricted Stock Agreement remain in full force and effect. 


 

			
	Sincerely,
	
	WEBMD HEALTH CORP
		
	By:		 /s/ Lewis H. Leicher

			Lewis H. Leicher
			Senior Vice President
	
	Agreed to:
	
	 /s/ David Schlanger

	David Schlanger


  
 2