alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Motion Granted; Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed May 16, 2013.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 13

- 00205

- CV

GENE JOHNSON , Appellant

V. AT & T, INC. , Appellee

On Appeal from the 270th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Ca use No. 2011

- 33209



### M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

T his is an appeal from a summary judgment signed November 13, 2012. The record reflects that appellant’s motion for new trial was electronically filed Friday, December 14, 2012, 31 days after the judgment was signed. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 329b(a) (requiring a motion for new trial to be filed within 30 days after the judgment is signed)

. The notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days after the judgment is signed when appellant has not file d a timely motion for new tri al

. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1 . Therefore, in the absence of a timely

- filed motion for new2

trial, appellant’s notice of appeal was due on or before December 13, 2013. If a timely motion for new trial is filed , the notice of appeal must be filed within 90 day s after the date the judgment is signed. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(a) . A ppellant’s notice of appeal was not filed until March 4, 2013, more than 105 days after judgment , beyond the time that could be extended, had his motion for new trial been filed timely. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.3 (permitting appellate court to grant an extension of time if the notice of appeal is filed within 15 days of its due date).

On April 23 , 20 13 , notification was transmitted to all parties of the court’s
intention to dismiss the a ppeal for want of jurisdiction unless appellant filed a

response , on or before May 6, 2013, demonstrating this court’s jurisdiction. In addition, o n April 24 , 2013, appell ee filed a motion to dismiss the appeal , raising the same jurisdictional issues as in the court’s notice

. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a)

. Appellant has not filed a response to the court’s notice or to appellee’s motion.
Accordingly, we grant appellee’s motion to dismiss the appeal , and w e order the appeal dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consis ts of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Frost and Donovan.
#### ANNE WILSON *v.*GEORGE WILSON.

Divorce — poligamy—adultery—injunction pending suit against meddling with the children, , or the property in possession of the wife.

A record of the conviction of a man of poligamy in another state, is not proof of adultery of itself, in a divorce case.

*129"Where the evidence fails and the cause is continued, the court will, hi a proper case, enjoin the husband from interfering with the children or .property, in the possession of the wife, - pending the suit.

Divorce. Causes — 1. Wilful absence. 2. Adultery with Catharine Rogers.

The petitioner relied upon the charge of adultery, and to prove it, offered a record of the conviction of the defendant of having married one Catharine Rogers in Pennsylvania since his marriage with the petitioner, and proof of the identity of the person.

By the Court.

That does not make out the adultery. The crime of adultery would be incomplete, without carnal connection. We may presume a connection, and it is probable one took place; but we have no proof of it.

Leave was given to amend the petition, and upon application of the petitioner, the defendant was enjoined from interfering with the custody of the children, or the property in possession of the petitioner, until the final hearing of the case: and the cause was continued.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-1074
In Re: PETER KAY STERN, Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (No. CA-96-183) Submitted: March 13, 1997 Decided: March 20, 1997 Before HALL, ERVIN, and WILKINS, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Peter Kay Stern, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).1 See In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987). 2 See Mallard v. United States Dist. Court , 490 U.S. 296, 309 (1989). 3 See In re United Steelworkers , 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979). 2 PER CURIAM: Peter Stern filed a mandamus petition in this court after the magistrate judge recommended that Stern's civil rights action in the Western District of North Carolina be dismissed. Instead offiling objections to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation with the district court, Stern seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the clerk of the Western District of North Carolina to enter a default judgment against the Defendants. The granting of the writ is a drastic remedy and should only be granted in extraordinary situations. 1 Stern must show that he has no other avenue for relief and that his right to relief is clear and undisputable. 2 Stern fails to meet his burden, and mandamus relief cannot be used as a substitute for appeal. 3 Accordingly, we deny the petition. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
<TABLE>


                                       Exhibit 11.1
                   COMPUTATION OF PRIMARY AND FULLY DILUTED NET INCOME
                                     (LOSS) PER SHARE
<CAPTION>
                                                            Year Ended December 31
                                        ------------------------------------------------------
                                                1996                 1995               1994
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                         <C>                 <C>                <C>
Net income (loss)                           $ 2,245,000         $ (269,000)        $ 3,562,000

Weighted average number of shares
  outstanding during the period               7,076,000          6,880,000           6,752,000
Add:
Assumed exercise of common share options      1,080,000               -              1,112,000
Less:
Purchase of common stock under
  the treasury stock method                    (480,000)              -               (502,000)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Common and common equivalent shares
  outstanding for purpose of calculating
  primary net income (loss) per share         7,676,000          6,880,000           7,362,000
Incremental shares to reflect full dilution       -                   -                  -
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total shares for purpose of calculating
  fully diluted net income (loss) per share   7,676,000          6,880,000           7,362,000
==============================================================================================
Primary net income (loss) per share               $0.29             $(0.04)              $0.48
==============================================================================================
Fully diluted net income (loss) per share         $0.29             $(0.04)              $0.48
==============================================================================================
</TABLE>
Motion Denied; Order filed November 6, 2014.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-14-00203-CR

____________

JAIME LEE GAMEZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 268th District Court

Fort Bend County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 12-DCR-061850

ORDER

Appellant is represented by appointed counsel, Michael Diaz. Appellant’s 

brief was originally due August 13, 2014. We granted a total of 90 days’ extension 

of time to file appellant’s brief until November 14, 2014. When we granted the last 

extension, we noted that no further extensions would be granted absent exceptional 

circumstances. No brief was filed. On November 3, 2014, counsel filed a further 
request for extension of time to file appellant’s brief. Counsel did not allege any 

exceptional circumstances in the request. 

We deny the request for extension and issue the following order.

Accordingly, we order Michael Diaz to file a brief with the clerk of this 

court on or before December 8, 2014. If counsel does not timely file appellant’s 

brief as ordered, the court will issue an order abating the appeal and directing the 

trial court to conduct a hearing to determine the reason for the failure to file the 

brief and the consideration of sanctions, appointment of new counsel, or other 

appropriate relief.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Boyce, Jamison, and Donovan.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 80 (Tuesday, April 25, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 24325]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-10136]



[[Page 24325]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

48 CFR Parts 6, 31, 32, and 42

[FAC 97-17; Item VI]


Federal Acquisition Regulation; Technical Amendments

AGENCIES: Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration 
(GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

ACTION: Technical amendments.

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

SUMMARY: This document makes amendments to the Federal Acquisition 
Regulation in order to update references and make editorial changes.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 25, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The FAR Secretariat, Room 4035, GS 
Building, Washington, DC 20405, (202) 501-4755.

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 6, 31, 32, and 42

    Government procurement.

    Dated: April 13, 2000.
Edward C. Loeb,
Director, Federal Acquisition Policy Division.

    Therefore, DoD, GSA, and NASA amend 48 CFR Parts 6, 31, 32, and 42 
as set forth below:
    1. The authority citation for 48 CFR Parts 6, 31, 32, and 42 
continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 40 U.S.C. 486(c); 10 U.S.C. chapter 137; and 42 
U.S.C. 2473(c).

PART 6--COMPETITION REQUIREMENTS

    2. In section 6.304, revise the second sentence of paragraph (a)(4) 
to read as follows:


6.304  Approval of the justification.

    (a) * * *
    (4) * * * This authority is not delegable except in the case of the 
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, 
acting as the senior procurement executive for the Department of 
Defense.
* * * * *

PART 31--CONTRACT COST PRINCIPLES AND PROCEDURES


31.101  [Amended]

    3. In section 31.101, in the last sentence, remove ``Acquisition 
and Technology'' and add in its place ``Acquisition, Technology, and 
Logistics''.

PART 32--CONTRACT FINANCING

    4. Remove ``19__'' and add ``20__'' in the following places:
    a. Section 32.411 in the Agreement for Special Bank Account; in 
paragraph (a) of Recitals; and after paragraph (e) of Covenants; and
    b. Section 32.805(c) in the Acknowledgement.


32.502-4  [Amended]

    5. In section 32.502-4 amend paragraph (a)(3) and (a)(4) by 
removing ``(a)(5)'' and adding in their places ``(a)(6)''.

PART 42--CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION AND AUDIT SERVICES

    6. Remove ``19_'' and add ``20_'' in the following places:
    a. Section 42.1204, in the Novation Agreement following paragraph 
(i) at paragraphs (a)(2), (a)(8) (twice), and in the Certificates 
following paragraph (b)(9); and
    b. Section 42.1205, in the Change-of-Name Agreement following 
paragraph (b) at paragraph (a)(2); and in the Certificate following 
paragraph (b)(2).

[FR Doc. 00-10136 Filed 4-24-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-EP-P
<PAGE>

                                     EXHIBIT

                                      23.1


<PAGE>

                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT



         We consent to the incorporation by reference in (i) the Post-Effective
Amendment No. 2 on Form S-3 to the Registration Statement on Form SB-2, File No.
33-61798, (ii) the Registration Statement on Form S-3, File No. 33-83186, (iii)
the Registration Statement on Form S-8, File No. 33-86080, (iv) the Registration
Statement on Form S-3, File No. 33-80019, (v) the Registration Statement on Form
S-3, File No. 333-29635, (vi) the Registration Statement on Form S-3, File No.
333-51853; and (vii) the Registration Statement on Form S-3, File No. 333-63235
of our report dated April 1, 1999 except for Note 4, as to which the date is 
April 12, 1999, on the consolidated financial statements of Unapix 
Entertainment, Inc. and subsidiaries included in its Annual Report on Form 
10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 1998.


/s/ Richard A. Eisner & Company, LLP

New York, New York
April 14, 1999
# Official Journal C 297/2023

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 297 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6622 August 2023 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 297

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6622 August 2023

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2023/C 297/01 | Euro exchange rates – 21 August 2023 | 1 |
| | NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES |
| 2023/C 297/02 | Publication pursuant to Article 10(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community of decisions by Member States to grant, suspend or revoke operating licenses (
  1
  ) | 2 |

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2023/C 297/01

Euro exchange rates – 21 August 2023

1

NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES

2023/C 297/02

Publication pursuant to Article 10(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community of decisions by Member States to grant, suspend or revoke operating licenses (
  1
  )

1

2

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | OTHER ACTS |
| | European Commission |
| 2023/C 297/03 | Publication of an application for approval of an amendment, which is not minor, to a product specification pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs | 17 |

V   Announcements

OTHER ACTS

European Commission

2023/C 297/03

Publication of an application for approval of an amendment, which is not minor, to a product specification pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs

17

---

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

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
Exhibit 32 (ii)

 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

 

In connection with the Form 10-Q of National Bankshares, Inc. for the quarter ended March 31, 2009, I, David K. Skeens, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer) of National Bankshares, Inc., hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:

 

(1)   such Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2009, 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 such Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2009, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of National Bankshares, Inc.

 

 

| /s/ DAVID K. SKEENS                                                                                |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| David K. SkeensTreasurer and 

Chief Financial Officer

(Principal Financial Officer)

May 6, 2009 |
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">Pierre Jean Jacques Renelique, as Assignee of Audley Noyan, Appellant, <br><br>against<br><br>Allstate Insurance Company, Respondent.</font></b></div><br><br><p>The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell, Esq.), for appellant.Sweetbaum &amp; Sweetbaum, Esqs. (Marshall D. Sweetbaum, Esq.), for respondent.</p><p>Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Terrence C. O'Connor, J.), entered April 17, 2015. The order denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.</p><p>ORDERED that the order is modified by providing that defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs.</p><p>In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court which denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.</p><p>Plaintiff correctly argues on appeal that the affidavits submitted by defendant did not sufficiently set forth a standard office practice or procedure that would ensure that the denial of claim form had been timely mailed (<a href="../2008/2008_04072.htm" target="_blank"><i>see St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co.</i>, 50 AD3d 1123</a> [2008]). As defendant did not demonstrate that it is not precluded from asserting its proffered defense—that the amounts plaintiff sought to recover were in excess of the workers' compensation fee schedule—defendant is not entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint.</p><p>However, contrary to plaintiff's contention, the affidavit plaintiff submitted in support of its motion failed to establish that the claim at issue had not been timely denied (<a href="../2015/2015_04787.htm" target="_blank"><i>see Viviane Etienne Med. Care, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co.</i>, 25 NY3d 498</a> [2015]), or that defendant had issued a timely denial of claim that was conclusory, vague or without merit as a matter of law (<a href="../2010/2010_08933.htm" target="_blank"><i>see Westchester Med. Ctr. v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.</i>, 78 AD3d 1168</a> [2010]; <a href="../2011/2011_51292.htm" target="_blank"><i>Ave T MPC Corp. v Auto One Ins. Co.</i>, 32 Misc 3d 128</a>[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 51292[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th &amp; 13th Jud Dists 2011]). As a result, plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was properly denied.</p><p>Accordingly, the order is modified by providing that defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.</p><p>PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ., concur.</p><br>ENTER:<br>Paul Kenny<br>Chief Clerk<br>Decision Date: December 22, 2017<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
October 1, 2006



Compensation Committee Charter



The Compensation Committee of the board of directors of Gamma Pharmaceuticals Inc. Inc. shall consist of a minimum of two directors, subject to the following. Members of the committee shall be appointed by the board of directors and may be removed by the board of director in its discretion.



Purpose



The purpose of the committee shall be to carry out the board of directors' overall responsibility relating to executive compensation.



In furtherance of this purpose, the committee shall have the following authority and responsibilities:



1.To assist the board in developing and evaluating potential candidates for executive positions, including the chief executive officer, and to oversee the development of executive succession plans.



2.         To review and approve on an annual basis the corporate goals and objectives with respect to compensation for the chief executive officer. The committee shall evaluate at least once a year the chief executive offices performance in light of these established goals and objectives and based upon these evaluations shall set the chief executive officer's annual compensation, including salary, bonus, incentive and equity compensation.



3.         To review and approve on an annual bask the evaluation process and compensation structure for the company's officers. The committee shall evaluate the performance of the company's senior executive officers and shall approve the annual compensation, including salary, bonus, incentive and equity compensation, for such senior executive officers. The committee shall also provide oversight of management's decisions concerning the performance and compensation of other company officers.



4.         To review the company's incentive compensation and other stock-based plans and recommend changes in such plans to the board as needed. The committee shall have and shall exercise all the authority of the board of directors with respect to the administration of such plans.



1



---



5.         To maintain regular contact with the leadership of the company. This should include interaction with the company's leadership, review of data from any employee survey and regular review of the results of the leadership evaluation process.



6.         To prepare and publish an annual executive compensation report in the company's proxy statement.



The committee shall have the authority to delegate any of its responsibilities to subcommittees as the committee may deem appropriate in its sole discretion.



The committee shall have authority to retain such compensation consultants, outside counsel and other advisors as the committee may deem appropriate in its sole discretion. The committee shall have sole authority to approve related fees and retention terms.



The committee shall report its actions and any recommendations to the board after each committee meeting and shall conduct and present to the board an annual performance evaluation of the committee. The committee shall review at least annually the adequacy of this charter and recommend any proposed changes to the board for approval.



2
#### § 390.302 Officer.

The term *Officer* means the president, any vice-president (but not an assistant vice-president, second vice-president, or other vice president having authority similar to an assistant or second vice-president), the secretary, the treasurer, the comptroller, and any other person performing similar functions with respect to any organization whether incorporated or unincorporated. The term *officer* also includes the chairman of the board of directors if the chairman is authorized by the charter or by-laws of the organization to participate in its operating management or if the chairman in fact participates in such management.
Harlowton

Roundup

Pompeys

 Pillar

Big Timber

Billings

Columbus

Bridger

Frannie

Lovell

Yellowstone River Corridor

Special Recreation 

Management Area

Alternatives C and D

T

8

S

0 3 6 12 18 24 30

Miles

Map 99

T

10

N

ver i

e

R

on

st w

llo

e Y

T

1

N

T

1

S

ork s Fk

C a r l

R17E R23E R29E Montana R105W R99W R93W Wyoming

T

57

N

Map scale 1:1,350,000

Map generated by the Billings Field Office in July 2011

Albers Equal Area, NAD83 Projection

This map is intended for display purposes. No warranty is made by the Bureau

of Land Management as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of the data for

individual or aggregate use with other data, or for purposes not intended by BLM. 

This map may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This product was 

developed through digital means and information may be updated without notification.

Billings & Pompeys Pillar 

National Monument RMP / EIS

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

Legend

State Border

Planning Area Boundary

Interstate

Highway

^ Towns

Water

For display purposes, the segments 

along the river have been enhanced.

Wyoming

Location Map

Montana

Billings 

Field 

Office

Ü Public Lands Survey System

Yellowstone River SRMA Corridor