alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
DISMISS; and Opinion Filed May 24, 2019.

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-19-00110-CV

PAULA WILLIE AND ALL OTHER OCCUPANTS, Appellants

V.

THE PLACE APARTMENTS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-18-06059-B

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Bridges, Brown, and Nowell

Opinion by Justice Brown

This is an appeal from an eviction suit initiated in justice court by appellee against 

appellants of a certain apartment in Mesquite, Texas. As reflected in the record, the justice court 

rendered judgment in favor of appellee on October 16, 2018, and appellants appealed to the 

county court by filing a State of Inability to Afford Payment of Court Costs or an Appeal Bond 

on October 23, 2018. The county court also rendered judgment in favor of appellee and 

appellants filed this appeal.

Because an appeal from a justice court judgment in an eviction case must be filed no later 

than five days after the judgment is signed and appellants filed their appeal seven days later, we 

questioned the county court’s jurisdiction over the appeal and, in turn, our 

jurisdiction. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 510.9(a) (deadline for appealing justice court judgment in 
–2–

eviction case); Wetsel v. Fort Worth Brake, Clutch, and Equip., Inc., 780 S.W.2d 952, 954 (Tex. 

App.—Fort Worth 1989, no writ) (untimely appeal from justice court deprives county court of

jurisdiction to review justice court’s judgment); First State Bank & Trust Co. of Port Lavaca v.

Vector Corp., 427 S.W.2d 958, 960 (Tex. Civ. App.—Waco 1968, writ ref'd n.r.e.) 

(appellate court jurisdiction extends no further than trial court’s). We directed appellants to file a 

letter brief addressing our concern, but more than ten days have passed, and appellants have not 

responded.

When, as here, the trial court lacked jurisdiction, we must set aside the judgment 

and dismiss the cause. See Dallas Cty. Appraisal Dist. v. Funds Recovery, Inc., 887 S.W.2d 465, 

468 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1994, writ denied). Accordingly, we set aside the county court’s 

judgment and dismiss the cause. See id.

190110F.P05

/Ada Brown/

ADA BROWN

JUSTICE
–3–

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

PAULA WILLIE AND ALL OTHER 

OCCUPANTS, Appellants

No. 05-19-00110-CV V.

THE PLACE APARTMENTS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law 

No. 2, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-18-06059-B.

Opinion delivered by Justice Brown. Justices 

Bridges and Nowell participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s January 18, 2019 

judgment is SET ASIDE and this cause is DISMISSED.

It is ORDERED that appellee THE PLACE APARTMENTS recover its costs of this 

appeal from appellants PAULA WILLIE AND ALL OTHER OCCUPANTS.

Judgment entered this 24th day of May, 2019.
exv10w17



 





Exhibit 10.17




Ixia

Summary of Compensation for Non-Employee Members

of the Board of Directors and its Committees




	 	 	 	 	 
	1.    Board of Directors
	 	 	 	 
	Annual retainer (except Chairman)
	 	$	35,000	 
	Chairman’s annual retainer
	 	$	47,000	 
	Fee for attending meeting
	 	$	2,000	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	2.    Compensation Committee
	 	 	 	 
	Annual retainer (except Chairman)
	 	$	9,000	 
	Chairman’s annual retainer
	 	$	12,000	 
	Fee for attending a meeting
	 	$	1,000	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	3.    Audit Committee
	 	 	 	 
	Annual retainer (except Chairman)
	 	$	10,000	 
	Chairman’s annual retainer
	 	$	20,000	 
	Fee for attending a meeting
	 	$	1,500	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	4.    Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee
	 	 	 	 
	Annual retainer (except Chairman)
	 	$	5,000	 
	Chairman’s annual retainer
	 	$	7,000	 
	Fee for attending a meeting
	 	$	1,000	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	5.    Strategic Planning Committee
	 	 	 	 
	Annual retainer (except Chairman)
	 	$	5,000	 
	Chairman’s annual retainer
	 	$	7,000	 
	Fee for attending a meeting
	 	$	1,000	 






     The above summarizes cash compensation payable to the non-employee directors of the Company’s
Board of Directors and its Committees effective as of July 1, 2006 (except that the compensation
for members of the Strategic Planning Committee is effective as of September 13, 2006 which is the
date of formation of the Committee).



     In addition to cash compensation, non-employee directors receive under the Company’s Amended
and Restated Non-Employee Director Stock Option Plan (the “Director Plan”) (i) a grant of stock
options upon their initial election to the Board of Directors and (ii) annual grants of stock
options upon their re-election to the Board. The Director Plan is included as Exhibit 4.2 to the
Company’s Registration Statement on Form S-8 (Registration No. 333-117969) as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2004.



*     *     *
§ 95.319 Malfunctioning transmitting equipment. If the operator of a Personal Radio Services station becomes aware that the transmitting equipment is no longer functioning properly, he or she must stop making transmissions (except for emergency communications) using the malfunctioning transmitting equipment until it has been adjusted and/or repaired, as necessary, to restore proper operation. ( a ) *FCC request to discontinue operation.* If an FCC representative informs a Personal Radio Services station operator that the technical characteristics of his or her transmitted signals are not in compliance with the applicable rules (e.g., regarding power, unwanted emissions, frequency accuracy), he or she must immediately stop making transmissions with the transmitter producing the non-compliant signals.
( b ) *Internal repairs.* Internal adjustments and repairs to Personal Radio Services transmitters must be performed by or under the supervision of an individual who is qualified to maintain and repair transmitters.
( c ) *Test transmissions.* The operator of any Personal Radio Services station may make brief test transmissions to verify the functional status of the transmitting equipment at any time, provided that such transmissions do not cause interference to the communications of other stations. A qualified individual maintaining or repairing a Personal Radio station transmitter in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section may make test transmissions as necessary to maintain or repair the transmitter, provided that such transmissions do not cause interference to communications of other stations.
**EXHIBIT 24**
**POWER OF ATTORNEY**
     KNOW ALL BY THESE PRESENTS, that each person whose signature appears belowconstitutes and appoints each of Anthony J. Conway and David A. Jonas, withfull power to each to act without the other, his or her true and lawfulattorney-in-fact and agent with full power of substitution, for him or her andin his or her name, place and stead, in any and all capacities, to sign theAnnual Report on Form 10-K of Rochester Medical Corporation (the “Company”) forthe Company’s fiscal year ended September 30, 2004, and any or all amendmentsto said Annual Report, and to file the same, with all exhibits thereto, andother documents in connection therewith, with the Securities and ExchangeCommission, and to file the same with such other authorities as necessary,granting unto each such attorney-in-fact and agent full power and authority todo and perform each and every act and thing requisite and necessary to be donein and about the premises, as fully to all intents and purposes as he or shemight or could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that each suchattorney-in-fact and agent, or his substitute, may lawfully do or cause to bedone by virtue hereof.
     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Power of Attorney has been signed on this 18thday of November, 2004, by the following persons.   /s/ Anthony J. Conway /s/ Darnell L. Boehm Anthony J. Conway Darnell L. Boehm   /s/ David A. Jonas /s/ Peter R. Conway David A. Jonas Peter R. Conway   /s/ Roger W. Schnobrich /s/ Benson Smith Roger W. Schnobrich Benson Smith
# EUR-Lex - 12003TN04/02 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12003TN04/02

**Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded - Annex IV: List referred to in Article 22 of the Act of Accession - 2. Company law **

*
Official Journal L 236 , 23/09/2003 P. 0797 - 0797 *

2. COMPANY LAW

Treaty establishing the European Community: Part Three, Title I Free Movement Of Goods

SPECIFIC MECHANISM

With regard to the Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Poland, Slovenia or Slovakia, the holder, or his beneficiary, of a patent or supplementary protection certificate for a pharmaceutical product filed in a Member State at a time when such protection could not be obtained in one of the abovementioned new Member States for that product, may rely on the rights granted by that patent or supplementary protection certificate in order to prevent the import and marketing of that product in the Member State or States where the product in question enjoys patent protection or supplementary protection, even if the product was put on the market in that new Member State for the first time by him or with his consent.

Any person intending to import or market a pharmaceutical product covered by the above paragraph in a Member State where the product enjoys patent or supplementary protection shall demonstrate to the competent authorities in the application regarding that import that one month's prior notification has been given to the holder or beneficiary of such protection.

--------------------------------------------------
Document

Exhibit 10.1



AMENDMENT NO. 1
TO THE
HAMILTON LANE INCORPORATED
EMPLOYEE SHARE PURCHASE PLAN
         WHEREAS, Hamilton Lane Incorporated, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”) maintains the Hamilton Lane Incorporated Employee Share Purchase Plan (the “Plan”); and 
        WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Plan to: (i) eliminate the 90-day employment requirement for enrollment in the Plan; and (ii) change the subscription date to be the date that is two weeks prior to the offering date to which the subscription date applies. 
        NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that, effective with respect to the offering period commencing on October 1, 2020 and each subsequent offering period thereafter, the Plan be, and it hereby is, amended as follows: 
1. The definition of “Subscription Date” is amended to read as follows: 
“Subscription Date” means the date that is two (2) weeks prior to the first calendar day of the first Offering Period to which the Subscription Agreement applies.  
2. Section 3(b) is amended by: 
(i) adding “or” to the end of subsection (b)(iv); 
(ii) deleting subsection (b)(v); and 
(iii) renumbering subsection (b)(vi) as subsection (b)(v). 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Amendment to be duly executed and delivered, all as of June 18, 2020. 
						
		HAMILTON LANE INCORPORATED
		
	By:	/s/ Lydia A. Gavalis
		Name: Lydia A. Gavalis
		Title: General Counsel and Secretary
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6858

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MICHAEL BRANDON SHULER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James P. Jones, Chief District Judge. (CR-01-10080; CA-03-446-7) Submitted: October 19, 2005 Decided: November 9, 2005 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Brandon Shuler, Appellant Pro Se. Randy Ramseyer, United States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Michael Brandon Shuler, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). This standard is satisfied by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of Shuler’s constitutional claims debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Shuler has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
# EUR-Lex - 11957A031 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 11957A031

**TREATY ESTABLISHING THE EUROPEAN ATOMIC ENERGY COMMUNITY ( E.A.E.C. - EURATOM ), TITLE TWO - PROVISIONS FOR THE ENCOURAGEMENT OF PROGRESS IN THE FIELD OF NUCLEAR ENERGY, CHAPTER III: HEALTH AND SAFETY, ARTICLE 31 **

*

*

++++

ARTICLE 31

THE BASIC STANDARDS SHALL BE WORKED OUT BY THE COMMISSION AFTER IT HAS OBTAINED THE OPINION OF A GROUP OF PERSONS APPOINTED BY THE SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL COMMITTEE FROM AMONG SCIENTIFIC EXPERTS , AND IN PARTICULAR PUBLIC HEALTH EXPERTS , IN THE MEMBER STATES . THE COMMISSION SHALL OBTAIN THE OPINION OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE ON THESE BASIC STANDARDS .

AFTER CONSULTING THE ASSEMBLY THE COUNCIL SHALL , ON A PROPOSAL FROM THE COMMISSION , WHICH SHALL FORWARD TO IT THE OPINIONS OBTAINED FROM THESE COMMITTEES , ESTABLISH THE BASIC STANDARDS : THE COUNCIL SHALL ACT BY A QUALIFIED MAJORITY .
tgi-ex102_352.htm



Exhibit 10.2

 

AMENDMENT NO. 1
TO
TRIUMPH GROUP, INC.
EXECUTIVE CHANGE IN CONTROL SEVERANCE PLAN

This Amendment No. 1 (this “Amendment”) amends the Triumph Group, Inc. Executive Change in Control Severance Plan, effective February 19, 2019 (the “CIC Plan”), effective February 10, 2020.

1.Amendment to the CEO Severance Multiple.  Section 3.2(b)(i) of the CIC Plan, setting forth the cash severance multiple for the CEO, is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:


	

	
“(i) three (3) for the CEO;”




2.Amendment to the Benefits Continuation Period.  Section 3.2(f)(i) of the CIC Plan, setting forth the benefits continuation period for the CEO, is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:

“(i) thirty-six (36) months following the CEO’s Effective Date of Termination for the CEO;”   

3.Amendment to Exhibit B to the CIC Plan.  The table in Exhibit B to the CIC Plan, summarizing the severance benefits payable to the CEO, Band 6 Executives and Band 5 Executives under the CIC Plan, is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:   


				
	
 
	
CEO
	
Band 6 Executives
	
Band 5 Executives

	
Salary/Bonus Severance
	
 
	
 
	
 

	
Base Salary
	
3.0x
	
1.5x
	
1.0x

	
Highest Annual Bonus1
	
3.0x 
	
1.5x
	
1.0x

	
Current Year Bonus
	
Prorated @ target
	
Prorated @ target
	
Prorated @ target

	
Equity
	
 
	
 
	
 

	
Time-Based and Cash LTI
	
Full acceleration
	
Full acceleration
	
Full acceleration

	
Performance-Based
	
Full acceleration @ target
	
Full acceleration @ target
	
Full acceleration @ target

	
Other
	
 
	
 
	
 

	
Benefits Continuation
	
36 months
	
18 months
	
12 months

	
Outplacement
	
$50,000 stipend
	
$20,000 stipend
	
$5,000 stipend

	
401(k) Plan
	
Payment equal to 2.0x maximum annual company 401(k) contribution match
	
Payment equal to 1.5x maximum annual company 401(k) contribution match
	
Payment equal to 1.0x maximum annual company 401(k) contribution match




 

1 Highest Annual Bonus” means the higher of (i) an Executive’s average annual bonus earned in each of the last three completed annual performance periods; and (ii) the current target bonus opportunity in the fiscal year in which a Qualifying Termination occurs.

 



 

4.No Other Amendments.  Except as amended as set forth in this Amendment, the CIC Plan remains in full force and effect.  

5.Governing Law. This Amendment and all determinations made and actions taken pursuant hereto shall be governed by the substantive laws, but not the choice of law rules, of the State of Delaware. 

2
EXHIBIT 21.1
 SIGNIFICANT SUBSIDIARIES OF SUN-TIMES MEDIA GROUP, INC.
AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2008
 JURISDICTION OFNAME OF SUBSIDIARY
    
    ORGANIZATION3016296 Nova Scotia Company
    
    Nova Scotia446065 B.C. Ltd.
    
    British ColumbiaAmerican Publishing Company LLC (formerly American Publishing Company)
    
    DelawareAmerican Publishing Management Services, Inc.
    
    IllinoisAmerican Publishing (1991) LLC (formerly American Publishing (1991) Inc.)
    
    DelawareAPAC-95 Oklahoma Holdings, Inc.
    
    DelawareCenterstage Media, LLC
    
    IllinoisChicago Group Acquisition LLC (formerly Chicago Group Acquisition Inc.)
    
    DelawareChicago Sun-Times Features, Inc.
    
    DelawareChicago Sun-Times LLC (formerly Chicago Sun-Times, Inc.)
    
    DelawareCreditscheme Limited
    
    EnglandDeedtask Limited
    
    EnglandDigital Chicago Inc.
    
    IllinoisDT Holdings
    
    EnglandFirst DT Holdings
    
    EnglandFox Valley Publications LLC (formerly Fox Valley Publications, Inc.)
    
    DelawareHC Holdings Company
    
    Nova ScotiaHGP, Partnership
    
    New YorkHIPI (2002) Inc.
    
    DelawareHollinger Australian Holdings Limited (formerly Telegraph Australian Holdings Limited)
    
    DelawareHollinger Canadian Publishing Holdings Co.
    
    Nova ScotiaHollinger International Publishing Inc.
    
    DelawareHollinger UK Holdings
    
    EnglandHTH BenHoldco LLC (formerly HTH BenHoldco Inc.)
    
    DelawareHTH Holdings Inc.
    
    DelawareHTNM LLC
    
    DelawareHTPC Corporation
    
    MarylandThe Johnstown Tribune Publishing Company
    
    DelawareLHAT Corporation
    
    DelawareMeridian Star, Inc.
    
    DelawareMidwest Suburban Publishing, Inc.
    
    DelawareNorthern Miner U.S.A. Inc.
    
    DelawareOklahoma Airplane LLC
    
    DelawarePioneer Newspapers Inc.
    
    DelawareReach Chicago LLC (formerly Reach Chicago Inc.)
    
    DelawareSecond DT Holdings
    
    EnglandTAHL (2002) Inc.
    
    DelawareThe Post-Tribune Company LLC (formerly The Post-Tribune Company)
    
    DelawareThe Red Streak Holdings Company
    
    IllinoisROGEREBERT.COM, LLC (20% ownership interest)
    
    IllinoisSun Telemarketing LLC (formerly Sun Telemarketing Inc.)
    
    DelawareThe Sun-Times Company
    
    DelawareSun-Times Distribution Systems, Inc.
    
    DelawareSun-Times PRD Inc.
    
    DelawareXSTMHoldings LLC
    
    Delaware
**AD Economic Evaluation**



### Docket No . FAA - 2012 - 0695 Directorate ID : 2011 - SW - 031 - AD Helicopter Model: Agusta S.p.A. Model A119 and AW119 MKII Helicopters Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 49 Helicopters in the US Regi stry . Reason : The actions in this AD are intended to prevent failure of an RVDT control box assembly , loss of manual control of the engine throttle, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter. Costs : Parts per Helicopter $8 Labor per Helicopter ( 1 .5 x $ 8 5 /work- hour for the inspection) (8 x $85/work- hour for the modification) $ 128 per inspection cycle $680 Other (Explain) Total Cost per Helicopter $ 128 per inspection cycle $688 for the modification Total US Fleet Cost $6,272 per inspection cycle $33,712 for the modification Executive Order 12866 : Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No (  ) DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures : Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No (  ) Regulatory Flexi bility Act : Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Yes ( ) No (  ) 

### Project Engineer : Jim Grigg
Merrimack,

No. 4563.

#### Louis C. Wyman, *Attorney General v.*Hugo DeGregory.

Argued February 5, 1957.

Reargument ordered June 28, 1957.

*83
      *Louis C. Wyman,*Attorney General (by brief and orally), *pro se.*

*James C. Cleveland*(by brief and orally), for the defendant.

Per curiam.

The decision in this case which presents the issue of the constitutionality of Laws 1955, c. 312, has been held in abeyance awaiting opinions and orders of the Supreme Court of the United States on kindred subjects which were announced June 17 and June 24, 1957.

Subsequent to arguments in this case that Court has decided *Sweezy*v. *New Hampshire,*77 S. Ct. 1203, and *Watkins*v. *United States,*77 S. Ct. 1173, both decided June 17, 1957, and has issued orders in No. 306 *Raley*v. *Ohio,*77 S. Ct. 1391, and No. 206 Miscellaneous, *Morgan*v. *Ohio,*77 S. Ct. 1403, both dated June 24, 1957. Since the disposition of this case may be affected by these decisions and orders it is necessary in fairness to the parties that the case should be set for reargument. Accordingly, the case will be assigned for reargument by separate order of this court at a time therein indicated.

*So ordered.*