alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
42449.

#### DeFEE, d/b/a AERIAL SURVEYS v. WILLIAMS, Clerk.

Jordan, Judge.

Larry DeFee, d/b/a Aerial Surveys, applied to this court for issuance of a writ of mandamus against Henry L. Williams, Clerk of the Civil and Criminal Court of Cobb County, seeking to compel the clerk to forward to this court his appeal to the overruling of a motion for new trial on July 11, 1966, in Case No. 2024 of that court. In response to mandamus nisi issued by this court the clerk replied that the appeal was filed on August 9, 1966, that on August 16, 1966, before he could prepare the records, opposing counsel in the case filed a motion for supersedeas bond, that on September 12, 1966, the judge of the trial court granted petitioner until September 16, 1966, to post supersedeas bond, which as of the date of the response had not been filed, that the costs of preparing the appeal had not been paid because *572he had not notified petitioner of the amount, and that on October 17, 1966, the judge of the trial court ordered a stay in the proceedings pending direction from this court. *Held:*

Decided November 7, 1966.

Larry DeFee, *pro se,*for petitioner.

Henry L. Williams, *pro se,*contra.

1. The Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to compel by mandamus the Clerk of the Civil and Criminal Court of Cobb County to transmit an appeal from that court to this court for its consideration. *Code*§ 6-918; *Cooper v.*Nisbet, 118 Ga. 872 (1) (45 SE 692); *Jones v. Smith,*83 Ga. App. 798, 800 (65 SE2d 188).

2. The proviso of Section 8 (a) of the Appellate Practice Act of 1965 (Ga. L. 1965, pp. 18, 22; *Code Ann.*§ 6-1002 (a)) requiring a supersedeas bond on motion of an appellee to the trial court is intended to prevent the notice of appeal from serving as a supersedeas, and does not operate as a condition precedent to deprive an appellant of his right to have his appeal transmitted to the appellate court for review. In the absence of such bond as may be required by the appropriate court the appellee is free to enforce the judgment *at his peril*pending decision on appeal. For related decisions under former law, see cases annotated under the catchword Failure, *Code Ann.*§ 6-1002.

3. The mandamus nisi is made absolute and the clerk is required to transmit forwith the record on appeal.

*Mandamus absolute granted.*

*Bell, P. J., and Eberhardt, J. concur.*
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7003

MARLON GOODWIN,

 Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

BILLY BARNES, Head Sheriff for Guilford County; KIM CARTER, 

Jailer; SERGEANT WOOD, Jailer,

 Defendants – Appellees,

and

BRIAN BEASLEY, Assistant District Attorney; ROBIN WORTH, 

N.C. DOC; CAPTAIN REID; BOOKING OFFICER JOHN DOE; DEE 

EVERETTE, Nurse,

 Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, 

Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:09-cv-00151-NCT-LPA)

Submitted: November 18, 2014 Decided: November 20, 2014

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
2

Marlon Goodwin, Appellant Pro Se. William L. Hill, James 

Demarest Secor, III, FRAZIER HILL & FURY, RLLP, Greensboro, 

North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Marlon Goodwin appeals the district court’s order 

denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We 

have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district 

court. Goodwin v. Barnes, No. 1:09-cv-00151-NCT-LPA (M.D.N.C. 

Mar. 11, 2013). We grant Goodwin’s motion to be heard on the 

full record before the district court and deny his motion for 

appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because 

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
HomeReportsBureau of CounterterrorismCountry Reports on Terrorism 2020…Democratic People’s Republic of Korea

# 					Country Reports on Terrorism 2020: Democratic People’s Republic of Korea			

 In this section										

                -  Democratic People’s Republic of Korea 

## Democratic People’s Republic of Korea

On November 20, 2017, the Secretary of State designated the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) as a State Sponsor of Terrorism.  The Secretary determined that the DPRK government repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism, as the DPRK was implicated in assassinations on foreign soil.

The DPRK was previously designated as a State Sponsor of Terrorism in 1988 primarily because of its involvement in the 1987 bombing of a Korean Airlines passenger flight.  The DPRK’s designation was rescinded in 2008 after a thorough review found the DPRK met the statutory criteria for rescission.  In 2017 the Secretary of State determined the DPRK had repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism since its State Sponsor of Terrorism designation was rescinded in 2008.  The DPRK also has failed to take action to address historical support for acts of international terrorism.  Four Japanese Red Army members wanted by the Japanese government for participating in a 1970 Japan Airlines hijacking continue to shelter in the DPRK.  The Japanese government also continues to seek a full accounting of the fate of numerous Japanese nationals believed to have been abducted by DPRK state entities in the 1970s and 1980s; only five such abductees have been repatriated to Japan since 2002.

## View report by:

### On This Page

                    -  Democratic People’s Republic of Korea 

Tags

Bureau of CounterterrorismBureau of East Asian and Pacific AffairsCountering TerrorismCountering Violent ExtremismCounterterrorismNorth KoreaTerrorism

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
EX-10.44



 Exhibit 10.44 
  





 
 Red Hat, Inc. 

Policy on Gross-up Payments for Excise Taxes Payable under Section 4999 

Approved by the Board of Directors on February 12, 2015 

Effective February 12, 2015, Red Hat, Inc. (the “Company”) will not enter into any new agreements to make gross-up payments for excise taxes
paid under Section 4999 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, by any executive of the Company.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 192 (Tuesday, October 6, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 51237]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-24004]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service

26 CFR Part 54

[TD 9457]
RIN 1545-BG71


Employer Comparable Contributions to Health Savings Accounts 
Under Section 4980G, and Requirement of Return for Filing of the Excise 
Tax Under Section 4980B, 4980D, 4980E or 4980G; Correction

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Correction to final regulations.

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

SUMMARY: This document contains corrections to final regulations that 
were published in the Federal Register on Tuesday, September 8, 2009, 
providing guidance on employer comparable contributions to Health 
Savings Accounts under the Internal Revenue Code (Code) as amended by 
the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006. The final regulations also 
provide guidance relating to the manner and method of reporting and 
paying excise tax.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mireille Khoury, (202) 622-6080 (not a 
toll free number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The final regulations (TD 9457) that are the subject of these 
corrections are under section 4980 of the Internal Revenue Code. This 
document contains corrections to final regulations (TD 9457) that were 
published in the Federal Register on Tuesday, September 8, 2009 (74 FR 
45994) providing guidance on employer comparable contributions to 
Health Savings Accounts under section 4980G of the Internal Revenue 
Code (Code) as amended by sections 302, 305, and 306 of the Tax Relief 
and Health Care Act of 2006. The final regulations also provide 
guidance relating to the manner and method of reporting and paying 
excise tax under sections 4980B, 4980D, 4980E and 4980G of the Code.

Need for Correction

    As published, the final regulations (TD 9457) contain errors that 
may prove to be misleading and are in need of clarification.

Correction of Publication

    Accordingly, the final regulations (TD 9457), that are the subject 
of FR Doc. E9-21225, are corrected as follows:
    On page 46000, column 3, in the signature block, line 6, the 
language ``Assistant Secretary of the Treasury (Tax'' is corrected to 
read ``Acting Assistant Secretary of the Treasury (Tax''.

LaNita VanDyke,
Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, 
Associate Chief Counsel, Procedure and Administration.
[FR Doc. E9-24004 Filed 10-5-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
§ 1209.28 Motions. ( a ) *In writing.* ( 1 ) Except as otherwise provided herein, an application or request for an order or ruling must be made by written motion.
( 2 ) All written motions must state with particularity the relief sought and must be accompanied by a proposed order.
( 3 ) No oral argument may be held on written motions except as otherwise directed by the presiding officer. Written memoranda, briefs, affidavits, or other relevant material or documents may be filed in support of or in opposition to a motion.
( b ) *Oral motions.* A motion may be made orally on the record, unless the presiding officer directs that such motion be reduced to writing, in which case the motion will be subject to the requirements of this section.
( c ) *Filing of motions.* Motions must be filed with the presiding officer and served on all parties; except that following the filing of a recommended decision, motions must be filed with the Director. Motions for pre-trial relief such as motions *in limine* or objections to offers of proof or experts shall be filed not less than 10 days prior to the date of the evidentiary hearing, except as provided with the consent of the presiding officer for good cause shown.
( d ) *Responses and replies.* ( 1 ) Except as otherwise provided herein, any party may file a written response to a non-dispositive motion within 10 days after service of any written motion, or within such other period of time as may be established by the presiding officer or the Director; and the moving party may file a written reply to a written response to a non-dispositive motion within five days after the service of the response, unless some other period is ordered by the presiding officer or the Director. The presiding officer shall not rule on any oral or written motion before each party with an interest in the motion has had an opportunity to respond as provided in this section.
( 2 ) The failure of a party to oppose a written motion or an oral motion made on the record is deemed as consent by that party to the entry of an order substantially in the form of the order accompanying the motion.
( e ) *Dilatory motions.* Frivolous, dilatory, or substantively repetitive motions are prohibited. The filing of such motions may form the basis for sanctions.
( f ) *Dispositive motions.* Dispositive motions are governed by §§ 1209.34 and 1209.35 of this part.
#### Eliza Walker Naul et al., Plaintiffs, *v.*Henry S. Naul et al., Defendants.

(Supreme Court, Kings Trial Term,

November, 1900.)

Case on appeal — By plaintiffs from an order granting a new trial — Their exceptions excluded.

A case upon an appeal from an order setting aside a verdict for the plaintiffs and granting a new trial on the minutes, should contain all the evidence and also the exceptions of the defendants, but it should not contain those of the plaintiffs as the new trial could not have been granted on their exceptions.

Settlement of a case on appeal from an order of the trial judge setting aside the verdict for the plaintiffs and granting a new trial on the judge’s minutes.

*648George H. Culyer, for plaintiffs.

James C. Church, for defendants.

Gaynor, J.:

The proposed amendments of the defendants (respondents) striking out the statement of the exceptions taken by' the plaintiffs (appellants) on the trial to the admission or exclusion of evidence are allowed. The plaintiffs having prevailed on the trial, their exceptions are now of no use, and the statements of them in the appeal record would he mere verbiage. The motion on the minutes by the defendants for a new trial was granted, and this is an appeal from that order. The case must contain all of the evidence, and any exceptions by the defendants which they may deem important, as the motion may have been granted on such exceptions. But it could not have been granted on the plaintiffs’ exceptions.

Case settled accordingly.
# C_2022466EN.01002201.xml

| 7.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 466/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 466/22

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

6 December 2022

(2022/C 466/05)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,0516 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 143,33 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4380 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,86170 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,8890 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 0,9872 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 148,90 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 10,4408 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 24,316 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 415,08 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,6975 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,9130 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 19,6010 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5625 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4326 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,1813 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6583 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,4263 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 386,39 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 18,2068 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,3494 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5563 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 16 441,49 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,6223 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 58,782 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | |
| THB | Thai baht | 36,827 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 5,5113 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 20,6884 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 86,6485 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,0516

JPY

Japanese yen

143,33

DKK

Danish krone

7,4380

GBP

Pound sterling

0,86170

SEK

Swedish krona

10,8890

CHF

Swiss franc

0,9872

ISK

Iceland króna

148,90

NOK

Norwegian krone

10,4408

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

24,316

HUF

Hungarian forint

415,08

PLN

Polish zloty

4,6975

RON

Romanian leu

4,9130

TRY

Turkish lira

19,6010

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5625

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4326

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,1813

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6583

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,4263

KRW

South Korean won

1 386,39

ZAR

South African rand

18,2068

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,3494

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5563

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

16 441,49

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,6223

PHP

Philippine peso

58,782

RUB

Russian rouble

THB

Thai baht

36,827

BRL

Brazilian real

5,5113

MXN

Mexican peso

20,6884

INR

Indian rupee

86,6485

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

---
Exhibit 31.4


Certification of Co-Chief Executive Officer of Barings Private Credit Corporation


pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) under the Exchange Act,


as adopted pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


I, Ian Fowler, as Co-Chief Executive Officer, certify that:


1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Barings Private Credit Corporation; and


2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.


/s/ IAN FOWLERIan FowlerCo-Chief Executive OfficerApril 29, 2022
### NUMBER 13 - 18 - 00324 - CR COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

R AMSEY ORLANDO GUERRERO , Appellant ,
v. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee.

On appeal from the 36th District Court of San Patricio County , Texas. 

## O R D E R
B efore Justices Contreras, Longoria, and Hinojosa

Order Per Curia m
Appellant, Ramsey Orlando Guerrero, has filed a notice of appeal with this Court from his conviction in trial court cause number S

- 17

- 3327CR

. The trial court’s certification of the defendan t’s right to appeal shows that the defendant does not have the right to appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 25.2(a)(2). The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provide that an appeal must be dismissed if a certification showing that a defendant has a right of app eal is not made a part of the record. Id. R. 25.2(d); see id.
R. 37.1, 44.3, 44.4. The purpose of the certification requirement is to efficiently sort2

appealable cases from non

- appealable cases so that appealable cases can “move through the system unhind ered while eliminating, at an early stage, the time and expense associated with non

- appealable cases.” Greenwell v. Ct. of Apps. for the Thirteenth Jud. Dist. , 159 S.W.3d 645, 649 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); see Hargesheimer v. State , 182 S.W.3d 906, 912 (Tex . Crim. App. 2006). Within thirty days of date of this notice, appellant’s lead appellate counsel, Steven Gilmore , is hereby ORDERED to: 1) review the record; 2) determine whether appellant has a right to appeal; and 3) forward to this Court, by letter, co unsel’s findings as to whether appellant has a right to appeal and/or advise this Court as to the existence of any amended certification. If appellant’s counsel determines that appellant has a right to appeal, counsel is further ORDERED to file a motion w ith this Court within thirty days of this notice, identifying and explaining substantive reasons why appellant has a right to appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P

. 44.3, 44.4; Dears v. State , 154 S.W.3d 610,
614

– 15 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); see also, e.g., Carroll v. State , 119 S.W.3d 838, 841 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 2003, no pet.) (certification form provided in appendix to appellate rules may be modified to reflect that defendant has right of appeal under circumstances not addressed by the form). The motion must inc lude an analysis of the applicable case law, and any factual allegations therein must be true and supported by the record. See Dears , 154 S.W.3d at 614

– 15; c f. Woods v. State, 108 S.W.3d 314, 316 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (construing former appellate rule 25 .2(b)(3) and holding that recitations in the notice of appeal must be true and supported by the record). Copies of record documents necessary to evaluate the alleged error in the certification affecting appellant’s right to appeal shall be attached to the motion. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 10.1, 10.2.3 PER CURIAM

Do not publish. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2( b). Delivered and filed the 22nd day of June 2018

.
§ 1041.1 Authority and purpose. ( a ) *Authority.* The regulation in this part is issued by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (Bureau) pursuant to Title X of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (12 U.S.C. 5481, *et seq.*).
( b ) *Purpose.* The purpose of this part is to identify certain unfair and abusive acts or practices in connection with certain consumer credit transactions and to set forth requirements for preventing such acts or practices. This part also prescribes requirements to ensure that the features of those consumer credit transactions are fully, accurately, and effectively disclosed to consumers.
[82 FR 54871, Nov. 17, 2017, as amended at 85 FR 44444, July 22, 2020]
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Russia’s Sham Elections in Ukraine’s Sovereign Territory

# 									Russia’s Sham Elections in Ukraine’s Sovereign Territory							

Press Statement

Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of State

September 7, 2023

The Russian Federation is in the process of conducting sham elections in occupied areas of Ukraine. These so-called elections are taking place nearly one year after the Kremlin staged sham referenda and purported to annex Ukraine’s Kherson, Zaporizhzhya, Donetsk, and Luhansk oblasts, and over nine years after Russia purported to annex Ukraine’s Autonomous Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol. The Kremlin hopes these pre-determined, fabricated results will strengthen Russia’s illegitimate claims to the parts of Ukraine it occupies, but this is nothing more than a propaganda exercise.

Russia’s actions demonstrate its blatant disregard for UN Charter principles like respect for state sovereignty and territorial integrity, which underpin global security and stability. The United States will never recognize the Russian Federation’s claims to any of Ukraine’s sovereign territory, and we remind any individuals who may support Russia’s sham elections in Ukraine, including by acting as so-called “international observers,” that they may be subject to sanctions and visa restrictions.

Tags

Bureau of European and Eurasian AffairsConflictsElectionsOffice of the SpokespersonRussiaThe Secretary of StateSovereigntyUkraine

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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          24,942
<SECURITIES>                                    83,488
<RECEIVABLES>                                   32,779
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     17,349
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               162,189
<PP&E>                                          11,080
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,491
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 175,679
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           16,851
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           326
<OTHER-SE>                                     157,697
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   175,679
<SALES>                                        128,941
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               130,193
<CGS>                                           69,628
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   73,950
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                53,015
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (855)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,083
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (3,154)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,237
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,237
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.21
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.21
        

</TABLE>