alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Indemnity Letter - Robert E. Diamond Jr



 Exhibit 4.31 
  

			
		 	Barclays Corporate Secretariat
		 	Level 29
		 	One Churchill Place
		 	London
		 	E14 5HP
	29 July 2005	 	
		
		 	Tel 020 7116 1000
	Robert E Diamond Jr	 	Fax 020 7116 7665
	President, Barclays PLC, CEO Investment Banking and Investment Management	 	
	Barclays Capital	 	
	5 The North Colonnade	 	
	Canary Wharf	 	
	London E14 4BB	 	

 

 
 Dear Bob 
 Indemnity contained in Articles of Association 
 Clause 3 of the Assignment Agreement attached as Schedule 1 to your employment contract
dated 25 May 2005 (“your Assignment Agreement”) states that your duties as a director of Barclays or any member of the Barclays Group are subject to the Articles of Association of the relevant company for the time being. 

For the avoidance of doubt, the Boards of Directors of the relevant companies have confirmed that as a director of Barclays PLC and Barclays Bank PLC you have the
benefit of and are able to rely upon the indemnity contained in Article 160 of the Barclays PLC Articles of Association and the identical wording in Article 157 of the Barclays Bank PLC Articles of Association, the terms of which are hereby
expressly incorporated into your employment terms. Copies of the relevant Articles are attached for your ease of reference. 
 The terms of this letter
(including the additional term of employment) and the benefit of the indemnity confirmed by it are governed by English law and the parties agree to submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the English Courts. 
 Yours sincerely 
  

					
	 /s/ Lawrence Dickinson
	 		 	 /s/ Patrick Gonsalves

	Lawrence Dickinson	 		 	Patrick Gonsalves
	Company Secretary	 		 	Joint Secretary
	Barclays PLC	 		 	Barclays Bank PLC
			
	Countersigned by	 		 	
			
	       


	 		 	
	Director	 		 	

  
  
  
  
 Barclays PLC. Registered in
England. Registered No: 48839. Registered Office: 1 Churchill Place, London E14 5HP
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-10122 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus VINCENT ROCHEL LEWIS, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:94-CV-184

- - - - - - - - - - August 4, 1998 Before JONES, SMITH, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Federal prisoner Vincent Rochel Lewis, no. 60694-079, appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. Lewis contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel when his attorney failed to file an appeal of his sentence. Lewis also contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel when his attorney failed to object to the district court’s use of incriminating information in violation ofNo. 97-10122 -2- U.S.S.G. § 1B1.8 to calculate Lewis’ sentence. The magistrate judge found credible counsel’s testimony at an evidentiary hearing that Lewis never requested an appeal. See United States v. Nixon , 881 F.2d 1305, 1310 (5th Cir. 1989). Also, because the Government never made any agreement such that § 1B1.8 would apply to Lewis’ case, any objection on that ground would have been meritless. See Clark v. Collins , 19 F.3d 959, 966 (5th Cir. 1994). Lewis cannot demonstrate that his attorney rendered deficient performance. See Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). To the extent that Lewis raises an independent issue that the district court erred by using information prohibited by § 1B1.8 to calculate his sentence, it is not a constitutional issue cognizable under § 2255. See United States v. Segler , 37 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 1994). Even if the issue was cognizable, it is without merit. Lewis does not argue on appeal his issues: 1) that he received ineffective assistance of counsel during plea bargaining: 2) that the trial court committed errors by failing to inform him of the nature of the charges and the core concerns of pleading guilty: 3) that the trial court erred by not advising Lewis of the contents of the plea agreement; and 4) that the sentencing court violated several other sentencing guidelines when sentencing him. Because Lewis failed to argue these issues, they are considered abandoned. See United States v. Madkins , 14No. 97-10122 -3- F.3d 277, 279 n.3 (5th Cir. 1994).

AFFIRMED.
§ 37.183 Purchase or lease of new OTRBs by operators of fixed-route systems. The following requirements apply to private entities that are primarily in the business of transporting people, whose operations affect commerce, and that operate a fixed-route system, with respect to OTRBs delivered to them on or after the date on which this subpart applies to them: ( a ) *Large operators.* If a large entity operates a fixed-route system, and purchases or leases a new OTRB for or in contemplation of use in that system, it shall ensure that the vehicle is readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, including individuals who use wheelchairs.
( b ) *Small operators.* If a small entity operates a fixed-route system, and purchases or leases a new OTRB for or in contemplation of use in that system, it must do one of the following two things: ( 1 ) Ensure that the vehicle is readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, including individuals who use wheelchairs; or
( 2 ) Ensure that equivalent service, as defined in § 37.105, is provided to individuals with disabilities, including individuals who use wheelchairs. To meet this equivalent service standard, the service provided by the operator must permit a wheelchair user to travel in his or her own mobility aid.
#### Joseph Carman, Respondent, *v.*The Delaware and Hudson Canal Company, *Appellant.*

Judgment .affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Bockes, J.
#### § 350.205 What entities are eligible for funding under MCSAP?

Only States are eligible to receive MCSAP grants directly from FMCSA.
#### § 236.743 Dog, swing.

A locking dog mounted in such a manner that it is free to rotate on a trunnion which is riveted to a locking bar.

Cross Reference:

Element, contact. See receiver, [§ 236.788](/on/2024-09-24/title-49/section-236.788).
#### MARTIN TEIGEN, Respondent, v. MINNEKOTA ELEVATOR COMPANY, a Corporation, Appellant.

(200 N. W. 41.)

(Cross Appeals.)

Former case held controlling'.

Following Teigen v. Occident Elevator Co. ante, 563, which held the identical chattel mortgage involved in this case to be invalid, judgment should be entered notwithstanding the verdict.

Opinion filed July 21, 1924.

In District Court, Ward County, Moellring, J.

’ Action for the conversion of grain. Plaintiff has appealed from an order granting a new trial and defendant from an order denying judgment notwithstanding the verdict.

Reversed.

*Palda &*Aaker, for appellant.

*F. B.*Lambert, for respondent;

Per. Curiam.

The same chattel mortgage is involved in this case that was considered and determined in Teigen v. Occident Elevator Co. ante, 563, 200 N W. 38. Plaintiff’s right of recovery in this case is-wholly dependent upon the validity of such chattel mortgage; hence, following Teigen v. Occident Elevator Company and the determination made in that case concerning the validity of the chattel mortgage involved herein, the trial court should have ordered judgment notwithstanding the verdict in defendant’s favor. It is accordingly ordered that the cause be remanded for appropriate proceedings consonant with this opinion.

Bronson, Ch. J., and Nubssle and Johnson, JJ., concur.

Bir.bzell and Christianson, JJ., dissent.
#### § 31.40 Stays ordered by the Department of Justice.

If at any time the Attorney General or an Assistant Attorney General designated by the Attorney General transmits to the authority head a written finding that continuation of the administrative process described in this part with respect to a claim or statement may adversely affect any pending or potential criminal or civil action related to such claim or statement, the authority head shall stay the process immediately. The authority head may order the process resumed only upon receipt of the written authorization of the Attorney General.
Exhibit 23.2








Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm





We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-22553, 33-27417, 33-32224 and 33-17829) of AmBase Corporation, of our report dated March 29, 2010 relating to the consolidated financial statements and schedules of AmBase Corporation and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2009, and for each of the two years in the period ended December 31, 2009, which appear in this Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010.








/s/ UHY LLP


Houston, Texas


March 30, 2011
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-0877.html[7/21/2015 5:04:03 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 08, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvb-6k5s

Comments Due: July 21, 2015

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0050

Definition of the Term ‘‘Fiduciary’’; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice; Notice of

 proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of previous proposed rule.

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0050-0205

Definition of Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice and Related Proposed

 Prohibited Transaction Exemptions; Hearing and Comment Period Extension

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-0877

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Terry and Patti Wise

General Comment

Leave our 401k's alone. It is not your jobs to get in our business. Leave our hard earned retirement money alone.

 We are not sharing it with anyone. God knows you have no intentions of sharing your, less then hard earned

 money. This is Free America, which means we will spend our very hard earned retirement on ourselves as we

 see fit. Leave your grimy hands off.
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 Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on June 19, 2007, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), National Biodiesel Accreditation Commission (“NBAC”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing additions or changes to its standards development activities. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, NBAC has amended its standard and its program including accompanying documents by making the standard applicable to eligible companies on a worldwide basis except where contraindicated by international law.                

                    On August 27, 2004, NBAC filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on October 4, 2004, (69 FR 59269).                

                    The last notification was filed with the Department on January 3, 2007. A notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on January 25, 2007 (72 FR 3416).                

Patricia A. Brink,

Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 07-4433 Filed 9-10-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
Stephen F. Brown, 

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 21, 2014

No. 04-14-00635-CV

STATE OF TEXAS ON BEHALF OF THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT ATTORNEY FOR 

BEXAR COUNTY, Jonathan Watkins, and Thomas Velez, all in their official capacities,

Appellants

v.

Stephen F. BROWN, Jr,

Appellee

From the 288th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014-CI-05810

Honorable Solomon Casseb, III, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Appellant’s motion to transfer the record is granted. We order the Clerk of this court to 

transfer a copy of the electronic clerk’s record and reporter’s record in this appeal to appeal no. 

04-14-00804-CV, In re Bexar County Criminal District Attorney’s Office, Jonathan Watkins, 

and Thomas Velez.

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 21st day of November, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
EXHIBIT 32








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 Realmark Property Investors Limited Partnership - II (the “Partnership”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Joseph M. Jayson, Individual General Partner and Principal Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:





(1)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2)
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of the operations of the Partnership.





May 16, 2011
/s/ Joseph M. JaysonDate
Joseph M. JaysonIndividual General Partner,Principal Executive Officer andPrincipal Financial Officer
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-0598.html[7/21/2015 6:36:36 AM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 08, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jva-hmg3

Comments Due: July 21, 2015

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0050

Definition of the Term ‘‘Fiduciary’’; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice; Notice of

 proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of previous proposed rule.

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0050-0205

Definition of Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice and Related Proposed

 Prohibited Transaction Exemptions; Hearing and Comment Period Extension

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-0598

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Edward Gehringer

Address:

929 Pirouette Ct.

Raleigh, NC, 27606

Email: ed.gehringer@gmail.com

Phone: 9198518459

General Comment

Fiduciary status must not reduce employees' investment choices!

In my experience as a participant in three separate retirement plans, every time that the trustees claim they are

 exercising fiduciary oversight, they reduce or change the investment vehicles available to employees. This

 means that employees like me, who have researched and tracked certain investment options, need to become

 familiar with other investments in short order.

Sometimes, employees are given access to a "brokerage window" to stay invested in what they want to invest in.

 But, in my experience, the lowest-cost funds (e.g., institutional class) are not available through brokerage

 windows, so employees still end up paying more.

Some regulators think that investments are too complicated for most employees, so trustees or government need

 to make decisions for employees. I vehemently disagree. It is fine for trustees to change the DEFAULT option

 to one that is better suited to most employees' long-term needs, but there is NO JUSTIFICATION for making

 experienced investors switch out of the options that they have researched and become familiar with.
#### George F. Train, Jr., *Appellant, v.*Max Freidman and others, *Respondents.*

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements to abide event. Opinion

*Per Curiam.*
Presidential Documents

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 19 / Tuesday, January 30, 2007 / Presidential Documents 4409 

Executive Order 13424 of January 26, 2007 

Further Amendment to Executive Order 13285, Relating to 

the President’s Council on Service and Civic Participation 

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the 

laws of the United States of America, and in order to extend the President’s 

Council on Service and Civic Participation, it is hereby ordered that Executive 

Order 13285 of January 29, 2003, as amended, is further amended by revising 

section 4(b) to read as follows: ‘‘(b) Unless further extended by the President, 

this order shall expire on November 30, 2008.’’ 

THE WHITE HOUSE, 

January 26, 2007. 

[FR Doc. 07–419 

Filed 1–29–07; 8:45 am] 

Billing code 3195–01–P 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES6GWBOLD.EPS</GPH>
SET ASIDE and REMAND and Opinion Filed October 24, 2023 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-23-00637-CV 

IN THE INTEREST OF P.H., A CHILD 

On Appeal from the 196th Judicial District Court 

Hunt County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 89,795 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Partida-Kipness, Reichek, and Miskel 

Opinion by Justice Reichek 

This is the second time this child protection case has been before the Court. 

In 2022, we reversed the trial court’s order terminating Father’s parental rights and 

remanded for further proceedings. See In re P.H., No. 05-22-00617-CV, 2022 WL 

17663648 (Tex. App.—Dallas Dec. 14, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op.). 

Father now appeals the trial court’s May 28, 2023 “Amended Final Order in 

Suit Affecting the Parent–Child Relationship and Order of Termination Following 

Appeal.” The parties have filed an agreed motion for remand to the trial court. In 

the motion, they state they have entered into a mediated settlement agreement which 

renders Father’s appeal moot. They ask the Court to set aside the trial court’s 
 –2– 

judgment and remand the case to the trial court for rendition of judgment in 

accordance with their agreement. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(2)(B). We grant the 

motion. As requested by the parties, we set aside the trial court’s order as to Father 

without regard to the merits and remand the case to the trial court for rendition of 

judgment in accordance with the parties’ settlement agreement. 

230637F.P05 

 

/Amanda L. Reichek/

AMANDA L. REICHEK 

JUSTICE 
 –3– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

IN THE INTEREST OF P.H., A 

CHILD 

No. 05-23-00637-CV 

 On Appeal from the 196th Judicial 

District Court, Hunt County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 89,795. 

Opinion delivered by Justice 

Reichek. Justices Partida-Kipness 

and Miskel participating. 

 In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we SET ASIDE the trial 

court’s May 28, 2023 order as to Francis Patrick Hines without regard to the merits 

and REMAND this case to the trial court for rendition of judgment in accordance 

with the parties’ mediated settlement agreement. 

 It is ORDERED that, subject to any agreement of the parties, each party bear 

its own costs of this appeal. 

Judgment entered this 24th day of October, 2023.
Release dates |     Full version (300 KB PDF)Board Actions |     Actions under delegated authority        Applications and reports received:Boston | New York | Philadelphia   | Cleveland | Richmond   | AtlantaChicago | St. Louis | Minneapolis   | Kansas City | Dallas   | San Francisco

# Board Actions

## Actions taken during the week ending May 25, 2013

----

Testimony and Statements            The Economic Outlook -- statement by Chairman Bernanke before the Joint Economic Committee of the U.S. Congress on the economic outlook and economic policy.            -Published, May 22, 2013            Regulations and Policies            Credit Card Plans -- annual report to Congress on the profitability of credit card operations of depository institutions.            -Approved, May 22, 2013                        Small Debit Card Issuers -- issuance of a report on the impact of Regulation II (Debit Card Interchange Fees and Routing) on small debit card issuers and annual list of the average interchange fees each network provides to non-exempt and exempt issuers.            -Approved, May 21, 2013            Enforcement            The Tysan Corporation, Minneapolis, Minnesota -- written agreement dated April 20, 2009, terminated May 15, 2013.            -Announced, May 21, 2013            
Release dates |     Full version (300 KB PDF)Board Actions |     Actions under delegated authority    Applications and reports received:
§ 350.231 What are the consequences for failure to meet MCSAP conditions? ( a ) *General.* ( 1 ) If a State is not performing according to an approved CVSP or not adequately meeting the conditions set forth in § 350.207, the Administrator may issue a written notice of proposed determination of nonconformity to the chief executive of the State or the official designated in the CVSP.
( 2 ) The notice will set forth the reasons for the proposed determination.
( b ) *Response.* The State has 30 days from the date of the notice to reply. The reply must address the discrepancy cited in the notice and must provide documentation as requested.
( c ) *Final Agency decision.* ( 1 ) After considering the State's reply, the Administrator makes a final decision.
( 2 ) In the event the State fails to timely reply to a notice of proposed determination of nonconformity, the notice becomes the Administrator's final determination of nonconformity.
( d ) *Consequences.* Any adverse decision will result in FMCSA: ( 1 ) Withdrawing approval of the CVSP and withholding all MCSAP funds to the State; or
( 2 ) Finding the State in noncompliance in lieu of withdrawing approval of the CVSP and withholding: ( i ) Up to 5 percent of MCSAP funds during the fiscal year that FMCSA notifies the State of its noncompliance;
( ii ) Up to 10 percent of MCSAP funds for the first full fiscal year of noncompliance;
( iii ) Up to 25 percent of MCSAP funds for the second full fiscal year of noncompliance; and
( iv ) Up to 50 percent of MCSAP funds for the third and any subsequent full fiscal year of noncompliance.
( e ) *Judicial review.* Any State aggrieved by an adverse decision under this section may seek judicial review under 5 U.S.C. chapter 7.