alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed June 13 , 2013

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 13

- 00473

- CR

JAVIER ALEJANDRO LOS OYA , Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 174th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1155961

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

After a plea of guilty
, the trial court deferred adjudication of guilt and assessed five years’ deferred adjudication probation on May 1, 2008

. Appellant’s notice of appeal was not filed until May 13, 2013

. A defendant’s notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days after sentence is imposed when the defendant has not filed a motion for new trial. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a)(1). If an appeal is not timely perfected, a court of appeals does not2

obtain ju risdiction to address the merits of the appeal. Slaton v. State , 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). Under those circumstances it can take no action other than to dismiss the appeal. Id.
Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Boyce, Jamison, and Busby

. Do Not Publish

— Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
#### Robert E. Stiles, as Administrator of the Estate of John Stiles, Deceased, Appellant, *v.*The New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, Respondent.

*Stiles*v. *N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co,,*142 App. Div. 917, affirmed.

(Argued January 16, 1913;

decided February 4, 1913.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the third • judicial department, entered February If, 1911, affirming a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a verdict in an action to recover for the death of plaintiff’s intestate alleged to have been occasioned through the negligence of defendant.

*Charles H. Knipp*and *D. C. Robinson*for appellant.

*Alexander D. Falck*and *John B. Stanchfield*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Werner, Willard Bartlett, Hiscock, Chase and Hogan, JJ. Not sitting: Collin, J.
Exhibit 10(u)

                        AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


         This Amendment to Employment Agreement ("Amendment") is entered into,
to be effective as of April 1, 2004, by and between Warrantech International,
Inc., a Delaware corporation, with its principal place of business located at
2200 Highway 121, Bedford, Texas 76021 ("Employer"), and Rick Rodriguez, an
individual residing at 1012 Clearlake Court, Colleyville, Texas 76034
("Executive").

                                    RECITALS

         WHEREAS, Employer and Executive entered into that certain Employment
Agreement ("Agreement"), effective April 1, 2000, pursuant to which Executive
agreed to serve as President of Employer subject to the terms and conditions set
forth therein:

         WHEREAS, the Agreement terminates as of the close of business on March
31, 2004: and

         WHEREAS, Employer and Executive desire to extend the term of the
Agreement for an additional three year period with no change in any of the
remaining terms and conditions set forth therein.

         NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the forgoing and the terms and
conditions set forth herein, Employer and Executive hereby agree as follows:

         1.       Section II of the Agreement is hereby amended and restated in
its entirety as follows: "The term of Executive's employment under this
Agreement shall commence on April 1, 2004 and shall continue through March 31,
2007."

         2.       Except as specifically set forth in Paragraph 1 above, all
provisions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect throughout the
term of the Agreement, as amended.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have duly executed this Amendment to be
effective as of April 1, 2004.


WARRANTECH INTERNATIONAL, INC.              EXECUTIVE

/s/ RICHARD GAVINO                          /s/ RICHARD RODRIGUEZ
----------------------------------          ------------------------------------
By:    Richard Gavino                       Richard Rodriguez
Title: EVP/CFO
Date:  11-2-04
* 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. 07-50486 Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee
v. JOSE MANUEL TORRES-MONTEJANO, alsoknown asJose Manuel Esquivas Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:06-CR-843-ALL Before REAVLEY, BARKSDALE, and GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Jose Manuel TorresMontejano raises arguments that are foreclosed byA lmendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2 ) is a penalty provi sion and not a separate criminal offense. U nited States v. Pineda-Arrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir. 2007), petition for cert. filed (Aug. 28, 2007) (No. 07-6202). The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D December 12, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk
No. 406.

#### Powell *v.*Maher, Trustee in Bankruptcy.

*Bolling R. Powell, Jr.,*petitioner, *pro se.*

*Roger Robb*for respondent.

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Certiorari denied.
From: Lois Smith

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 5:59:14 PM

I join with the American Association of University Women (AAUW) in asking you to accept the

recommendations of the Institute of Medicine as they pertain to coverage of preventive care under the

new health care law, and to reject any exemptions for “religious employers.” These preventive services

are a critical element of the new law and would provide countless women better access to necessary

health care.
From: John Viacrucis

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Support Access to Preventive Care and Contraception

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 10:46:52 PM

Dear Department of Health and Human Services,

I join with the American Association of University Women (AAUW) in asking you to

accept the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine as pertain to coverage of

preventive care under the new health care law, and to reject any exemptions for

“religious employers.” These preventive services are a critical element of the new law

and would provide countless women better access to necessary health care.

While AAUW believes that “religious refusal” exemptions unjustly deny women access

to contraceptive services, others, driven by an ideological distaste for all contraceptive

services, are pushing the government to make exemptions even larger. Indeed, some

groups are pushing for the exemption to apply to religiously-run health providers, so

hospitals with religious affiliations would be exempt from the coverage requirement,

even though they employ people of all faiths and ideologies. If granted, this larger

exemption would deny access to thousands of women just because of where they work.

I urge you to ensure women have access to quality preventive care by accepting IOM’s

recommendations and rejecting the proposed religious refusal exemption provisions.

Sincerely,

John Viacrucis
#### William H. Nearpass, as Trustee, etc., Respondent, v. Franklin Newman, Jr., and others, Appellants.

Judgment reversed and neiv trial granted, costs to abide event. Opinion by

Prat.t, J.;

Barnard, P. J., not sitting.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh

Elizabeth M. Welch,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

March 2, 2021

t0222 

# Order

Clerk March 2, 2021

161450

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 161450

COA: 352963

Wayne CC: 15

- 008467

- FC

MALCOLM BERNARD BENSON,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 22, 2020 order

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the de fendant has

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
From: Ann Karkheck

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB44 Mandatory Birth Control

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 9:42:05 AM

To Whom it May Concern,

I object in the strongest of terms to mandating birth control with no co-pays under

the Affordable Care Act.

Birth control is already widely available to all women, subsidized largely by

taxpayers. Demanding that we further subsidize other people's birth control by

increasing our insurance premiums in these days when families are struggling just to

make ends meet is an outrage. 

The mandate violates my conscience and that of millions of Americans who oppose

birth control on moral and religious grounds. 

It is undisputed that one of the operations of contraceptives is to render the

endometrium hostile to implantation, so that if fertilization occurs, the newly

conceived child may be lost to an early abortion. I also strongly object to the

inclusion of free sterilization as well as abortifacient pills like ella, which can work

weeks after a person's biological beginning to cause an abortion.

And what of Catholic employers and others who oppose birth control, but are now

going to be forced to participate in these plans and/or offer it to their employees?

This flies in the face of the conscience protections that Americans have historically

enjoyed.

The conscience provisions attached to the rule are so narrowly crafted that they

would appear to force Catholic institutions to make free birth control and sterilization

available in health plans, or cease hiring and providing services to non-Catholics. 

It is incomprehensible that such a mandate is being forced upon the people of the

United States.

It is no secret that Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion chain in America, is

behind this mandate, and will reap huge financial benefits from it at a time when

citizens in the United States are working on both the state and federal levels to

defund the abortion giant. 

The majority of Americans are pro-life and we do not want our tax dollars and

insurance premiums supporting the nation's largest abortion chain.

It is imperative that you give credence to my personal objection along with those of

millions of other Americans who do not want to be forced to pay for and provide

medication, devices, and procedures that do not treat or prevent any disease or

illness, but distort and render inoperable a healthy reproductive system. This rule is

unjust, untenable, and un-American--and it should be stricken.

Sincerely,

Ann Karkheck
Perkiomenville, Pennsylvania
No. 228, Misc.

#### Bean *v.*Cochran, Corrections Director.

Supreme Court of Florida. Certiorari denied.
---

---

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 annual report of Ampal-American Israel Corporation (the
Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each
of the undersigned executive officers of the Company certifies, to the best of such
executive officers knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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

| | By: /s/ Jack Bigio
Jack Bigio
President and CEOAmpal-American Israel Corporation
March 29, 2006 | By: /s/ Irit Eluz
Irit Eluz
CFO and Senior Vice President-Finance and TreasurerAmpal-American Israel Corporation
March 29, 2006
| | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or
otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version
of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and
will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.



---

---
No. 462.

#### Alabama Power Co. et al. *v.*Federal Power Commission.

*A. J. G. Priest, Joseph M. Farley, Edwin J. Wesely, Frank Snell, Daniel James, William H. Schroder, Major T. Bell, Andrew P. Carter, Garner W. Green, Sam B. Chase, Bradford S. Magill, Richard H. Peterson, Vincent P. Mc-Devitt, Eugene J. Bradley, Cornelius Means, Wendell W. Black and John W. Riely*for petitioners.

*Solicitor Gen-*

*eral Cox, Richard A. Solomon, Hoioard E. Wahrenbrock, Leonard D. Eesley*and *Drexel D. Journey*for respondent.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
EX-4.55



 Exhibit 4.55 

FOURTH AMENDMENT TO 
 THE
EXCLUSIVE RAGNAROK ONLINE LICENSE 
 AND DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENT 

THIS FOURTH AMENDMENT (“this Amendment”) is made and entered into on this
5th day of March, 2015 (“Effective Date”), by and between Gravity Co., Ltd., (“Licensor”), a corporation
duly organized and existing under the laws of the Republic of Korea and having its principal office at 15F, Nuritkum Square R&D Tower, 396, Worldcup buk-ro, Mapo-Gu, Seoul, Korea and AsiaSoft Corporation Public Co.,
Ltd., (“Licensee”) a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the Thailand and having its principal office at 9 U.M. Tower, 28th Floor, Room 9/283-5,
Ramkhamhaeng Road, Suanluang, Bangkok 10250, Thailand. 
 RECITALS 

WHEREAS, Licensor and Licensee (“Parties” collectively) signed EXCLUSIVE RAGNAROK ONLINE LICENSE AND DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENT
(“the Agreement”), on 5th day of March 2010; and 
 WHEREAS, Parties
entered into FIRST AMENDMENT TO RAGNAROK LICENSE AND DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENT (“the First Amendment”), on 5th day of March 2010. 

WHEREAS, Parties entered into SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE EXCLUSIVE RAGNAROK ONLINE LICENSE AND DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENT (“the Second
Amendment”), on 5th day of March 2012. 
 WHEREAS, Parties entered into
THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE EXCLUSIVE RAGNAROK ONLINE LICENSE AND DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENT (“the Third Amendment”), on 5th day of March 2013. 

WHEREAS, this Amendment is supplemental to the Agreement, and the Parties enter into this Amendment, to amend certain provisions in the
Agreement. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promise and covenants contained herein, the Parties agree as follows:

  

	1.	 Renewal Term 



The Parties agree to extend the term of the Agreement for one (1) year (“Renewed Term”) from March 5th, 2015 with conditions stated below in this Amendment. The Newly extended term of the Agreement shall be from March 5th, 2015 to March 4th, 2016. 








	2.	 Renewal Condition 



(1) License Fee. 
 Licensee shall pay to
Licensor a non-recoupable and non-refundable Renewal License Fee in the amount of Twenty-five Thousand USD (US$25,000) within Thirty (30) Calendar days of the Effective Date. 
  


	3.	 Continuing Effectiveness of the Agreement 



Except as expressly set forth herein, this Amendment shall not by implication or otherwise alter, modify, amend or in any way affect any of the
terms, conditions obligations, covenants or agreements contained in the Agreement amended by its amendments, all of which are ratified and affirmed in all respects and shall continue in full force and effect. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Parties have executed this Amendment on the date first above written. 

 

									
	 Gravity Co., Ltd.
	 		 	 AsiaSoft Corporation Public Co., Ltd.

			
	
By:                      
                
	 		 	
By:                      
                

			
	 Name: Hyun Chul Park
	 		 	 Name: Pramoth Sudjitporn

			
	 Title: CEO
	 		 	 Title: CEO
From: junevendetti@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:07:22 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

June Vendetti

Bridgeport, CT 06606
From: jgeisick@cfu.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:37:49 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Jennifer Geisick

Cedar Falls, IA 50613
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-6873

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ROBERT LAWRENCE PAYNE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District

Judge. (CR-90-20-R; CA-96-920-7)

Submitted: June 10, 2004 Decided: June 16, 2004

Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert L. Payne, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Jack Bondurant, Jr.,

Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Robert L. Payne seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying his motion to reconsider filed under Rule 60(b) of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 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).

A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable

jurists would find that his constitutional claims are 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 Payne 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