alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 348.5 Small market share exemption. ( a ) *Exemption.* A management interlock that is prohibited by § 348.3 is permissible, if: ( 1 ) The interlock is not prohibited by § 348.3(c); and
( 2 ) The depository organizations (and their depository institution affiliates) hold, in the aggregate, no more than 20 percent of the deposits in each RMSA or community in which both depository organizations (or their depository institution affiliates) have offices. The amount of deposits shall be determined by reference to the most recent annual Summary of Deposits published by the FDIC for the RMSA or community.
( b ) Confirmation and records. Each depository organization must maintain records sufficient to support its determination of eligibility for the exemption under paragraph (a) of this section, and must reconfirm that determination on an annual basis.
427 A.2d 253

#### Commonwealth v. Young, Appellant.

Sub*635mitted March 21, 1980.

Ronald F. O’Driscoll, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant;

Ronald T. Williamson, Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Before PRICE, CAVANAUGH and WATKINS, JJ.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 96-4173

___________

Clark A. Kruger, Inmate 115235, *

 *

Appellant, *

 *

v. *

 *

James H. Bruton, Individually, and * Appeal from the United States

in his official capacity as Deputy * District Court for the

Commissioner; Dennis L. Benson, * District of Minnesota. 

Individually, and in his official *

capacity as warden of the state prison *

at Stillwater; Rudy Kohler, * [UNPUBLISHED]

Individually, and in his official *

capacity, as a Cell Hall Lieutenant at *

the State Prison, at Stillwater, *

 *

Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: July 6, 1998

 Filed: July 10, 1998

___________

Before FAGG, BEAM, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.
The Honorable James M. Rosenbaum, United States District Judge for the

1

District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable

Franklin L. Noel, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.

-2-

Clark A. Kruger, a Minnesota inmate, appeals the district court’s judgment in 1

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit. We have carefully reviewed the record and the parties’

briefs, and conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Kruger’s

motion to amend, see Wolgin v. Simon, 722 F.2d 389, 394-395 & n.10 (8th Cir. 1983),

and its judgment was correct. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. Kruger’s

motion to strike is denied.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,

J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk June 28, 2011

p0620 

# Order

June 28, 2011

142507

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 142507 COA: 294149 Wayne CC: 99-011967-FC KENNETH ROY BARTLEY, JR., Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 16, 2010 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

Z AHRA 

### , J., did not participate because he was on the Court of Appeals panel.
Exhibit 10.5





                          EMPLOYMENT AND FEE AGREEMENT

THIS AGREEMENT made this 31st day of May, 2001, by and between Winmax Trading
Group, Inc. (hereinafter "CLIENT") with a mailing address of 429 Seabreeze
Boulevard, Suite 227, Fort Lauderdale, FL 91764 and telephone number of (954)
523-4500, and RICHARD P. GREENE, P.A., (hereinafter ATTORNEY).

1.   CLIENT retains ATTORNEY to represent CLIENT as Attorney at Law regarding
Corporate/Securities related matters and authorizes and empowers ATTORNEY to do
all things reasonably necessary to complete corporate and securities
transactions with CLIENT'S consent (other than in connection with capital
raising transactions) and agrees to retain attorney for the services rendered on
the following terms and conditions:

        a.   On the basis of the time expended by ATTORNEY, a retainer shall
             consist of 100,000 shares of common stock of Winmax Trading Group,
             Inc. All referenced shares shall be registered pursuant to a
             Registration Statement on Form S-8.

        b.   CLIENT shall also be responsible for costs incurred including, but
             not limited to, long distance phone calls, transcripts,
             photocopies, postage, filing fees, and costs of newspaper
             publications. Advanced costs that are not expended during the
             course of the representation are to be returned to the client at
             the conclusion of the representation, unless ATTORNEY and CLIENT
             agree otherwise in writing.

2.   ATTORNEY will render a final statement for services rendered and costs
incurred.  If CLIENT disagrees with any charge for fees or costs, CLIENT must
notify ATTORNEY in writing within ten (10) days after the date of mailing.
Otherwise, all charges are agreed by CLIENT to be approved and accepted.  All
bills are due when rendered.

3.   CLIENT understands and agrees that ATTORNEY has made no guarantee regarding
the successful outcome or termination of the engagement and all expressions
pertaining thereto are matters of opinion. Should it be necessary to institute
legal proceedings for the collection of any part of the ATTORNEY'S compensation
or costs as set forth above, then CLIENT agrees to pay all court costs and
reasonable attorneys fees with regard to the collection of same.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement the date first
mentioned above.

ACCEPTED:
Richard P. Greene, P.A.                              Winmax Trading Group, Inc.

By: /s/ Richard P. Greene                    By: /s/ Ralph Pistor
------------------------------               -----------------------------------
      ATTORNEY                                       Ralph Pister, President
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
REGISTRANT'S FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR ITS SECOND QUARTER YEAR-TO-DATE OF FISCAL
YEAR 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          19,533
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   17,928
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      2,253
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                40,055
<PP&E>                                         243,968
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 341,612
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           47,900
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               69
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      16,532
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   341,612
<SALES>                                         52,398
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                52,398
<CGS>                                           35,014
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   35,014
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (14,549)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              11,310
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 20,623
<INCOME-TAX>                                     7,807
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             12,816
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    12,816
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.87
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.85


</TABLE>
Exhibit 99.1

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


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Transnational Industries, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2002 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Jonathan A. Shaw, President and Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      (1) The Report 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 Report fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
      Company.


/s/ Jonathan A. Shaw
--------------------
Jonathan A. Shaw
President and Chief Executive Officer

Dated: December 15, 2002

This certification is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
subject to the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other
purpose.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NOS. WR-88,960-01 thru -04

EX PARTE JAMES RAY SMITH, Applicant

ON APPLICATIONS FOR WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NOS. CR09-0253-01, CR-09-0254-01, CR09-0255-01, & CR09-0256-01

IN THE 43RD DISTRICT COURT

FROM PARKER COUNTY

YEARY, J., filed a dissenting opinion.

DISSENTING OPINION

I dissent for the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in Ex parte Fournier, 473

S.W.3d 789, 800–805 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015).

FILED: October 3, 2018

DO NOT PUBLISH
AHT 2015 Q1 10-Q - EX 10.3.1


 



EXHIBIT 10.3.1




May 8, 2015    
Ashford TRS VI Corporation
14185 Dallas Parkway, Suite 1100
Dallas, TX  75254
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Reference is made to that certain Purchase and Sale Agreement (the “Agreement”), dated as of February 18, 2015, by and between Ashford TRS VI Corporation, Ashford Hospitality Select, Inc. and Ashford Hospitality Select Limited Partnership.  Capitalized terms not otherwise defined in this letter have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.
The undersigned hereby notify you, pursuant to Section 2.3 of the Agreement, that the Agreement is terminated and of no further force and effect. 


Very truly yours,
ASHFORD HOSPITALITY SELECT LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
		
	By:
	Ashford OP Select General Partner LLC, its general partner


By: /s/ DAVID BROOKS    
Name:  David Brooks
Title:    Vice President
IIB 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3209

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 18, 2003

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural 

Resources 

AN ACT

To amend the Reclamation Project Authorization Act of 

1972 to clarify the acreage for which the North Loup 

division is authorized to provide irrigation water under 

the Missouri River Basin project.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

HR 3209 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. CLARIFICATION OF ACREAGE FOR IRRIGATION 

2 WATER. 

3 Section 501 of the Reclamation Project Authorization 

4 Act of 1972 (43 U.S.C. 615dddd) is amended by striking 

5 ‘‘fifty-three thousand acres’’ and inserting ‘‘approximately 

6 53,000 acres’’.

Passed the House of Representatives November 17, 

2003. 

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL, 

Clerk.
###### Editorial Note on Part 1266

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1266 appear at 75 FR 76622, Dec. 9, 2010.

#### § 1266.15 Liquidation of advances upon termination of membership.

If an institution's membership in a Bank is terminated, the Bank shall determine an orderly schedule for liquidating any indebtedness of such member to the Bank; this section shall not require a Bank to call any such indebtedness prior to maturity of the advance. The Bank shall deem any such liquidation a prepayment of the member's indebtedness, and the member shall be subject to any fees applicable to such prepayment.

[58 FR 29469, May 20, 1993. Redesignated at 65 FR 8256, Feb. 18, 2000 and further redesignated at 65 FR 44430, July 18, 2000]
# C_2020316EN.01000501.xml

| 24.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 316/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 316/5

---

State aid – Decision to raise no objections

(2020/C 316/05)

The EFTA Surveillance Authority raises no objections to the following State aid measure:

| Date of adoption of the decision | 23 June 2020 |
| --- | --- |
| Case No | 85 207 |
| Decision No | 061/20/COL |
| EFTA State | Norway |
| Title | COVID-19 Compensation scheme for taxi companies in Viken |
| Legal basis | The rules governing the measure are set out in the ‘Regler for tilskuddsordning til taxinæringen’. |
| Type of measure | Scheme |
| Objective | The objective of the scheme is to compensate for damage caused by the COVID-19 outbreak to taxi companies that have entered into contracts concerning transportation of pupils with the public transportation authorities in Viken. |
| Budget | NOK 27,9 million |
| Duration | 23 June – 31 August 2020 |
| Economic sectors | Transport |
| Name and address of the granting authority | Østfold kollektivtrafikk





  PO Box 220 |
| 1702 Sarpsborg |
| NORWAY |
| Ruter AS |
| PO Box 1030 |
| 0104 Oslo |
| NORWAY |
| Brakar AS |
| Bragernes torg 1 |
| 3017 Drammen |
| NORWAY |

Date of adoption of the decision

23 June 2020

Case No

85 207

Decision No

061/20/COL

EFTA State

Norway

Title

COVID-19 Compensation scheme for taxi companies in Viken

Legal basis

The rules governing the measure are set out in the ‘Regler for tilskuddsordning til taxinæringen’.

Type of measure

Scheme

Objective

The objective of the scheme is to compensate for damage caused by the COVID-19 outbreak to taxi companies that have entered into contracts concerning transportation of pupils with the public transportation authorities in Viken.

Budget

NOK 27,9 million

Duration

23 June – 31 August 2020

Economic sectors

Transport

Name and address of the granting authority

Østfold kollektivtrafikk

PO Box 220

1702 Sarpsborg

NORWAY

Ruter AS

PO Box 1030

0104 Oslo

NORWAY

Brakar AS

Bragernes torg 1

3017 Drammen

NORWAY

The authentic text of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found on the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s website:

http://www.eftasurv.int/state-aid/state-aid-register/decisions/

---
#### § 411.210 Reporting.

No reporting is required with respect to payments of reasonable compensation made to regularly employed officers or employees of a person.
# C_2021426EN.01001001.xml

| 21.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 426/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 426/10

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 15 July 2021

in Case E-11/20

Eyjólfur Orri Sverrisson v The Icelandic State

(Directive 2003/88/EC – Protection of the safety and health of workers – Working time – Travel to a location other than a worker’s fixed or habitual place of attendance – International travel)

(2021/C 426/07)

In Case E-11/20, Eyjólfur Orri Sverrisson v The Icelandic State – REQUEST to the Court under Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice by Reykjavík District Court (Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur) concerning the interpretation of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time, in particular Article 2 (1), the Court, composed of Páll Hreinsson, President, Per Christiansen and Bernd Hammermann (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave judgment on 15 July 2021, the operative part of which is as follows:

| 1. | The necessary time spent travelling, outside normal working hours, by a worker, such as the plaintiff in the main proceedings, to a location other than his fixed or habitual place of attendance in order to carry out his activity or duties in that other location, as required by his employer, constitutes ‘working time’ within the meaning of Article 2(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time. It is immaterial whether that journey is made entirely within the EEA or to or from third countries if the employment agreement is established under and governed by the national law of an EEA State. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The necessary time spent travelling, outside normal working hours, by a worker, such as the plaintiff in the main proceedings, to a location other than his fixed or habitual place of attendance in order to carry out his activity or duties in that other location, as required by his employer, constitutes ‘working time’ within the meaning of Article 2(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time. It is immaterial whether that journey is made entirely within the EEA or to or from third countries if the employment agreement is established under and governed by the national law of an EEA State.

| 2. | No assessment of the intensity of the work performed while travelling is required. |
| --- | --- |

2.

No assessment of the intensity of the work performed while travelling is required.

---
EXHIBIT 4.1

                                   DEMAND NOTE

                                                                    May 24, 2000
                                                              New York, New York

         FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned, THE NORTH FACE, INC., a Delaware
corporation ("Maker"), promises to pay to the order of RING COMPANY ("Ring"), a
Delaware corporation, on demand, the aggregate principal amount of all advances
made to Maker by Ring from time to time on or after the date hereof. The
aggregate principal amount outstanding from time to time will bear interest at
the rate of interest published in the Wall Street Journal Money Rates Section as
the one-month London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) for any date on which any
principal amount is outstanding (which rate shall be applicable until the next
date as of which any change in LIBOR is published) plus .75%. This interest rate
may change on a daily basis. Interest on the aggregate principal amount
outstanding will be computed on a basis of a year of 360 days and paid for
actual days elapsed. Interest accrued through the last day of each calendar
month shall be payable on the first business day of the succeeding month
commencing June 1, 2000.

         If default is made in the payment of this Demand Note, Maker agrees to
pay the holder all costs of collection, including but not limited to court costs
and reasonable attorneys' fees.

         All advances made by Ring and all repayments of the principal thereof
and interest thereon shall be recorded by Ring and, if Ring so elects in
connection with any transfer of enforcement hereof, appropriate notations to
evidence the foregoing information with respect to each such advance then
outstanding may be endorsed by Ring on the schedule attached hereto, or on a
continuation of such schedule attached to and made a part hereof, provided that
the failure of Ring to make any such recordation or endorsement shall not affect
the obligations of the Maker hereunder.

         This Demand Note shall be governed by and construed in accordance with
the laws of the State of New York.

                                            THE NORTH FACE, INC.

                                            By: /s/ Geoffrey D. Lurie
                                               ----------------------
                                               Name: Geoffrey Lurie
                                               Title: CEO
§ 328.104 Investigations of potential violations. ( a ) The General Counsel has delegated authority to investigate potential violations of section 18(a) of the FDI Act (12 U.S.C. 1828(a)) and this subpart.
( b ) Such investigations will be conducted as prescribed under section 10(c) of the FDI Act (12 U.S.C. 1820(c)) and subpart K of part 308 of this chapter (12 CFR 308.144 through 308.150). Notwithstanding the general confidentiality provisions of 12 CFR 308.147, in cases that may pose a risk of imminent harm to consumers, the FDIC may disclose or confirm the existence of an investigation that does not involve an Insured Depository Institution or a known IAP thereof. Such disclosure must not disclose any information obtained or uncovered during the course of the investigation.
#### CONRAD V. THE STATE.

(Decided June 16, 1913.)

Appeal from Houston Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. H. A. Pearce.

E. H. Hill, for appellant. R. C. Brickell, Attorney General, and W. L. Martin, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Walker, P. J. —

The bill of exceptions stricken because not presented within ninety days. Section 3019, Code 1907. Affirmed.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-50898

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

CARLOS MORENO,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 4:09-CR-188-1

Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

The attorney appointed to represent Carlos Moreno has moved for leave

to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386

U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011).

Moreno has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the

relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s

assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review.

Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

April 19, 2011

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 09-50898 Document: 00511450044 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/19/2011
No. 09-50898

excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

2

Case: 09-50898 Document: 00511450044 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/19/2011
#### § 338.7 Recordkeeping requirements.

All FDIC-supervised institutions that receive an application for credit primarily for the purchase or refinancing of a dwelling occupied or to be occupied by the applicant as a principal residence where the extension of credit will be secured by the dwelling shall request and retain the monitoring information required by Regulation B of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (12 CFR part 1002).