alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Hawkins *v.*The State.

Larceny.

(Decided March 23, 1917.

74 South. 739.)

Larceny; Instruction. — Where the prosecution was for the larceny of a cow, and the defense was that defendant had won the cow in a gambling game, it was error to refuse a charge that if after considering all the evidence the jury had a reasonable doubt whether defendant took the cow unlawfully, or whether he purchased it in good faith, they should find defendant not guilty.

*627Appeal from Lauderdale Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. C. P. Almon.

Charlie Hawkins was convicted of the larceny of a cow and he appeals.-

Reversed and remanded.

The contention of the appellant is that the indictment read “Jim Yank,” instead of “Jim Tank,” in laying the possession of the property to be that of Jim Tank. The defense was that defendant had won the cow from another party in a gambling game, and did not steal the cow from the prosecuting witness.

James Jackson and Mitchell & Houghton, for appellant.

W. L. Martin, Attorney General, and P. W. Turner, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

BROWN, P. J.

The court has inspected the original indictment transmitted to the court under the rule, and finds that the name of the person alleged to be the owner of the property as laid in the indictment is “Jim Tank.” ' This disposes of the appellant’s contention that there was a variance between the averments and proof.

Under the evidence in the case the court erred in refusing the following charge requested by defendant: “If, after considering all the evidence, the jury have a reasonable doubt whether defendant took the cow unlawfully, or whether he purchased it in good faith from Hardin, they will find the defendant not guilty.”

We have examined the oral charge of the court, and hold that it does not render harmless the refusal of this charge.

Reversed and remanded.
§ 4041.45 Distress termination notice. ( a ) *General rule.* The plan administrator must file with the PBGC a PBGC Form 601, Distress Termination Notice, Single-Employer Plan Termination, with Schedule EA-D, Distress Termination Enrolled Actuary Certification, that has been completed in accordance with the instructions thereto, on or before the 120th day after the proposed termination date.
( b ) *Participant and benefit information* — ( 1 ) *Plan insufficient for guaranteed benefits.* Unless the enrolled actuary certifies, in the Schedule EA-D filed in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section, that the plan is sufficient either for guaranteed benefits or for benefit liabilities, the plan administrator must file with the PBGC the participant and benefit information described in PBGC Form 601 and the instructions thereto by the later of— ( i ) 120 days after the proposed termination date, or
( ii ) 30 days after receipt of the PBGC's determination, pursuant to § 4041.46(b), that the requirements for a distress termination have been satisfied.
( 2 ) *Plan sufficient for guaranteed benefits or benefit liabilities.* If the enrolled actuary certifies that the plan is sufficient either for guaranteed benefits or for benefit liabilities, the plan administrator need not submit the participant and benefit information described in PBGC Form 601 and the instructions thereto unless requested to do so pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section.
( 3 ) *Effect of failure to provide information.* The PBGC may void the distress termination if the plan administrator fails to provide complete participant and benefit information in accordance with this section.
( c ) *Additional information.* The PBGC may in any case require the submission of any additional information that it needs to make the determinations that it is required to make under this part or to pay benefits pursuant to section 4061 or 4022(c) of ERISA. The plan administrator must submit any information requested under this paragraph within 30 days after receiving the PBGC's written request (or such other period as may be specified in such written request).
13169

#### LYNCH v. LYNCH *ET AL.*

(159 S. E., 26)

*186
      *Messrs. Willcox &*Hardee, for appellant.

*Messrs. A. P. Woods*and *D. Gordon*Baker, for respondent.

June *9,*1931.

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Stabler.

This Court is satisfied with the conclusions of Judge Dennis and the reasoning on which they rest, and the Circuit decree, appealed from, is affirmed.

Mr. Chiep Justice Blease and Messrs. Justices Cothran, Carter and Bonham concur.
Exhibit 10.48

 



 

Montreal, May 2, 2013

 

BY COURIER

DAVIDsTEA Inc.

c/o Elise Trudeau

5775A Ferrier

Mount-Royal, QC H4P 1N3

 

RE:                           License Agreement Extension

336-340 Queen Street West

 

Further to a License Agreement between the parties dated June 18, 2008, this letter confirms the agreement to extend the Term for a further period of 10 months expiring on July 31, 2014 upon the same terms and conditions as the License agreement.

 

Acknowledged and agreed this 31 of May, 2013.

 

DAVIDsTEA Inc., by its authorized signatory

 

 

	
Per:
    	
/s/ Howard Tafler  /s/   Herschel Segal
    	
 
    
	
Name:
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Title:
    	
 
    	
 
    


 

 

Acknowledged and agreed this 3rd of June, 2013.

 

Le Château Inc., by its authorized signatory

 

 

	
Per:
    	
/s/ Emilia Di   Raddo
    	
 
    
	
Name:
    	
Emilia Di Raddo, CA
    	
 
    
	
Title:
    	
President
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Per:
    	
/s/ Lee Albert
    	
 
    
	
Name:
    	
Lee Albert
    	
 
    
	
Title:
    	
Director, Real   Estate
    	
 
    


 

8300 boul, Dècarie Montréal Québec H4P 2P5 · T. (514) 738-7000 F. (514) 738-8288

Lechateau.com
<PAGE>

                                                                     Exhibit 21

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANTS

Louisville Gas and Electric Company (a Kentucky corporation), Kentucky 
Utilities Company (a Kentucky and Virginia corporation), LG&E Capital Corp. 
(a Kentucky corporation), WKE Corp. (a Kentucky corporation), Western 
Kentucky Energy Corp. (a Kentucky corporation), LG&E Power Inc. (a Delaware 
corporation), LG&E Power Services Inc. (a California corporation), LG&E Power 
Operations Inc. (a California corporation), LG&E Energy Marketing Inc. (an 
Oklahoma corporation), and LG&E International Inc. (a Delaware corporation) 
are significant subsidiaries of LG&E Energy Corp.  Louisville Gas and 
Electric Company, Kentucky Utilities Company and LG&E Capital Corp. are 
wholly-owned direct subsidiaries of LG&E Energy Corp.  WKE Corp., LG&E Power 
Inc. and LG&E International Inc. are wholly-owned direct subsidiaries of LG&E 
Capital Corp.  Western Kentucky Energy Corp. is a wholly-owned direct 
subsidiary of WKE Corp.  LG&E Energy Marketing Inc., LG&E Power Services Inc. 
and LG&E Power Operations are wholly-owned direct subsidiaries of LG&E Power 
Inc.

LG&E Capital Corp., directly and through it subsidiaries and affiliates,
including WKE Corp., LG&E Power Inc. and LG&E Power Inc., is a holding company
for non-regulated domestic energy and energy related operations, investments,
activities and services.

WKE Corp., together with Western Kentucky Energy Corp. and two other 
subsidiaries, leases and operates power generation facilities in western 
Kentucky and related assets.

LG&E Power Inc. conducts non-regulated domestic energy operations and activities
through its subsidiaries and affiliates, including LG&E Energy Marketing Inc.,
LG&E Power Services Inc. and LG&E Power Operations Inc. LG&E Energy Marketing
Inc., together with one subsidiary operating in the United States, markets and
brokers electric power and natural gas in the United States. LG&E Power Services
Inc. operates and maintains domestic power generation facilities. LG&E Power
Operations Inc., together with approximately 37 subsidiaries or affiliates
operating in the United States, owns interests in domestic power generation
facilities. Approximately twenty-one other subsidiaries of LG&E Power Inc. (20
operating in the United States and one operating in Canada) together are
involved in the gathering, processing, storage and transportation of natural gas
in the United States and the marketing of natural gas in Canada.

LG&E International Inc., together with eight subsidiaries operating in the
United States, three operating in Argentina and two in Spain, holds LG&E Energy
Corp.'s investments in the Argentine gas distribution companies and its current
investments in foreign power generation facilities.

Louisville Gas and Electric Company has no subsidiaries.

Kentucky Utilities Company has one subsidiary, Lexington Utilities Company (a 
Kentucky corporation).
§ 2200.1 Definitions. As used in this part: ( a ) *Act* means the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. 651-678.
( b ) Commission, person, employer, and *employee* have the meanings set forth in section 3 of the Act, 29 U.S.C. 652.
( c ) *Secretary* means the Secretary of Labor or the Secretary's duly authorized representative.
( d ) *Executive Secretary* means the Executive Secretary of the Commission.
( e ) *Affected employee* means an employee of a cited employer who is exposed to or has access to the hazard arising out of the allegedly violative circumstances, conditions, practices, or operations.
( f ) *Judge* means an Administrative Law Judge appointed pursuant to section 12(e) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. 661(e), as amended by Public Law 95-251, 92 Stat. 183, 184 (1978).
( g ) *Authorized employee representative* means a labor organization that has a collective bargaining relationship with the cited employer and that represents affected employees who are members of the collective bargaining unit.
( h ) *Representative* means any person, including an authorized employee representative, authorized by a party or intervenor to represent it in a proceeding.
( i ) *Citation* means a written communication issued by the Secretary to an employer pursuant to section 9(a) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. 658(a).
( j ) *Notification of proposed penalty* means a written communication issued by the Secretary to an employer pursuant to section 10(a) or (b) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. 659(a) or (b).
( k ) *Day* means a calendar day.
( l ) *Working day* means all days except Saturdays, Sundays, or Federal holidays.
( m ) *Proceeding* means any proceeding before the Commission or before a Judge.
( n ) *Pleadings* are complaints and answers filed under § 2200.34, statements of reasons and employers' responses filed under § 2200.38, and petitions for modification of abatement and objecting parties' responses filed under § 2200.37. A motion is not a pleading within the meaning of these rules.
[84 FR 14558, Apr. 10, 2019; 84 FR 45654, Aug. 30, 2019]
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Ernesto Reyes, * From the 441st District Court

 of Midland County

Trial Court No. CR46345.

Vs. No. 11-17-00100-CR * April 11, 2019

The State of Texas, * Memorandum Opinion by Bailey, C.J.

(Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Stretcher, J., and Wright, S.C.J., sitting

by assignment)

(Willson, J., not participating)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there 

is no error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s 

opinion, the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
#### SHIELDS et v SUPREME COUNCIL OF THE ROYAL ARCANUM

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co

No. 10119.

Decided March 17, 1930

Payer, Minshall, Karch & Kerr, Cleveland, for Shields.

Ian M. Ross, Cleveland, for Supreme Council.

Judges WILLIAMS & RICHARDS (6th Dist) sitting.

WILLIAMS, J.

Plaintiff in error relies upon waiver of the provisions of the policy by the establishment of a custom of giving notice. There is some question whether the return of the so-called card constituted the giving of notice, but if we assume, for the purposes of argument, that it did, and that the course of action was such as to constitute a waiver of the provisions of the policy as to payment without notice, we are still confronted with a conflict in the evidence as to whether or not the card was in fact returned. The collector maintained that the card was treated like all other cards that were received and that all were returned, and the plaintiff in error adduced evidence tending to show that it was never received.

The trial court was warranted in believing the testimony of the collector and disbelieving the testimony adduced to the contrary, and, therefore, in finding that notice was given by returning the card. We can not say that the decision of the court is manifestly .against the weight of the evidence and, finding no reversible error apparent on the face of the record, the judgment must be affirmed.

Richards, P., concurs.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Cancer Institute Initial Review Group Subcommittee G—Education.                    

*Date:*                         June 27-29, 2000.                    

*Time:*                         1 p.m. to 12 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                              ( print page 33336)    

*Place:*                         Georgetown Holiday Inn, 2101 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20007.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Harvey P. Stein, Phd, Scientific Review Administrator, Grants Review Branch, Division of Extramural Activities, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, 6116 Executive Boulevard, Room 8036, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301/496-7481.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.392, Cancer Construction; 93.393, Cancer Cause and Prevention Research; 93.394, Cancer Detection and Diagnosis Research; 93.395, Cancer Treatment Research; 93.396, Cancer Biology Research; 93.397, Cancer Centers Support; 93.3398, Cancer Research Manpower; 93.399, Cancer Control, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: May 16, 2000.

LaVerene Y. Stringfield,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 00-12892 Filed 5-22-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
#### In the Matter of Gregory W., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant.

[696 NYS2d 899]

—In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, the appeal is from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Ambrosio, J.), dated March 19, 1998, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court, dated February 5, 1998, made after a hearing, finding that the appellant committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crime of sexual abuse in the first degree, adjudged him to be a juvenile delinquent and placed him on probation for a period of 18 months. The appeal brings up for review the fact-finding order dated February 5, 1998.

Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the presentment agency *(see, Matter of David H.,*69 NY2d 792; *cf., People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted sexual abuse in the first degree. Moreover, resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the trier of fact, which saw and heard the witnesses *(cf., People v Gaimari,*176 NY 84, 94). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record *(cf., People v Garafolo,*44 AD2d 86, 88). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the findings of fact were not against the weight of the evidence *(cf.,*CPL 470.15 [5]).

Given the court’s credibility determinations, the evidence permitted a reasonable inference that the purpose of the appellant’s conduct was sexual gratification as defined by Penal Law *222§§ 130.65 and 130.00 (3) *(see, Matter of Kwame H.,*258 AD2d 424). Mangano, P. J., O’Brien, Ritter and Schmidt, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
REGISTRANT'S FORM 10Q QUARTERLY REPORT UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1934 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1999
<CASH>                                      61,139,044
<SECURITIES>                                23,440,894
<RECEIVABLES>                               11,767,177
<ALLOWANCES>                                   386,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            97,950,521
<PP&E>                                       1,826,449
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             120,299,184
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       20,280,710
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        25,301
<OTHER-SE>                                  98,467,013
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               120,299,134
<SALES>                                      6,908,607
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            14,220,756
<CGS>                                          688,859
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               10,128,211
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,927,773
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,733,661
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,194,222
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,194,222
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.09


</TABLE>
(74 South. 1006)

#### BRANNON v. STATE.

(6 Div. 154.)

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

March 23, 1917.)

Appeal from Criminal Court, Jefferson County; Wm. E. Fort, Judge.

John P. Abbott, of Birmingham, for appellant. W. L. Martin, Atty. Gen., for the State.

BROWN, P. J.

We have examinee} the record, and it appears therefrom that the proceedings in the trial court were regular and free from error. Affirmed.
§ 4041A.42 Method of distribution. ( a ) *In general.* The plan sponsor shall distribute plan assets by purchasing from an insurer contracts to provide all benefits required by § 4041A.43 to be provided in annuity form and by paying in a lump sum (or other alternative elected by the participant) all other benefits.
( b ) *Missing participants and beneficiaries.* The plan sponsor must distribute plan benefits of missing distributees in accordance with subpart D of part 4050 of this chapter.
[61 FR 34052, July 1, 1996, as amended at 82 FR 60818, Dec. 22, 2017]
#### § 1404.17 Policy.

In an effort to reduce the time and expense of some grievance arbitrations, FMCS offers expedited procedures where the parties agree on a streamlined process with short deadlines. Parties may also agree on their own procedures if it is practicable for FMCS.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Interior

###### Bureau of Land Management

          - [OR-030-00-1020-XU: GPO-0210]

# AGENCY:

Vale District, Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

# ACTION:

Meeting of John Day/Snake Resource Advisory Council: Enterprise, Oregon, May 23 & 24, 2000. 

# SUMMARY:

                        Correction to the second day meeting location published May 3, 2000 in the                         **Federal Register.**                         On May 24, 2000 the meeting will be held next door to Wallowa-Whitman National Forest office, 88401 Hwy 82, at the Best Western Rama Inn conference room, Enterprise, Oregon from 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Juan Palma, Bureau of Land Management, Vale District Office, 100 Oregon Street, Vale, Oregon 97918, Telephone (541) 473-3144.

Juan Palma,

District Manager.

[FR Doc. 00-12596 Filed 5-18-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-33-M
§ 36.205 Educational institutions and other entities controlled by religious organizations. ( a ) *Exemption.* These Title IX regulations do not apply to any operation of an educational institution or other entity that is controlled by a religious organization to the extent that application of these Title IX regulations would not be consistent with the religious tenets of such organization.
( b ) *Exemption claims.* An educational institution or other entity that wishes to claim the exemption set forth in paragraph (a) of this section shall do so by submitting in writing to the designated agency official a statement by the highest-ranking official of the institution, identifying the provisions of these Title IX regulations that conflict with a specific tenet of the religious organization.