alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
i i i i i i

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-08-00529-CR

Gonzalo Jerry MENDEZ,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 187th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2007-CR-7902A

Honorable Raymond Angelini, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Alma L. López, Chief Justice

Catherine Stone, Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Delivered and Filed: August 29, 2008

DISMISSED

The trial court’s certification in this appeal states that the case is one in which the defendant

has waived the right of appeal. Rule 25.2(d) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provides,

“[t]he appeal must be dismissed if a certification that shows the defendant has a right of appeal has

not been made part of the record under these rules.” TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d). 

Appellant’s counsel has filed written notice with this court that counsel has reviewed the

record and “can find no right of appeal for Appellant.” We construe this notice as an indication that
04-08-00529-CR

-2-

appellant will not seek to file an amended trial court certification showing that he has the right of

appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d); 37.1; see also Daniels v. State, 110 S.W.3d 174, 177 (Tex.

App.—San Antonio 2003, no pet.). In light of the record presented, we agree with appellant’s

counsel that Rule 25.2(d) requires this court to dismiss this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is

dismissed.

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH
No. 640, Misc.

No. 675, Misc.

#### Schontube *v.*Supreme Court of Wisconsin; and Springfield *v.*Carter, U. S. District Judge.

Motions for leave to file petitions for writs of mandamus denied.
From: Kenneth Koerner

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Thank you for supporting birth control access for all women

Date: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 5:23:02 PM

Dear Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health & Human Services,

I commend the Department of Health & Human Services' landmark decision requiring health insurers to

cover the full cost of contraception, with no co-pay, beginning in August 2012.

This policy places a much-needed importance on women's health that is too-often not a priority in

health care policy. Birth control is a critical part of preventive care, and making contraception available

to all women, regardless of their insurance or ability to pay for it, will significantly reduce long-term

health care costs associated with unplanned pregnancies.

Thank you for prioritizing women's basic health care needs.

Sincerely,

Kenneth Koerner

P.O. Box 712

Miranda, CA 95553
From: joeandtish@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:34:03 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,

Tish Roberts

Bonaire, GA 31005
EX-4.59



 Exhibit 4.59 

Amendment No.1 to China Ming Yang Wind Power Group Limited 

2010 Equity Incentive Plan 

THIS AMENDMENT NO.1 is made on August 27, 2012 by China Ming Yang Wind Power Group Limited (the “Company”), to the 2010
Equity Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) adopted by the Company in September 2010. 
 WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the
Company (the “Board”) and the Compensation Committee (the “Committee”) have determined that it is in the best interests of the Company to amend the Plan as set forth below; 

WHEREAS, subject to approval of the shareholders of the Company, the Board may amend the Plan as set forth below pursuant to Section 13
of the Plan; and 
 WHEREAS, the shareholders of the Company, the Board and the Compensation Committee have approved this Amendment No.1 on
the date hereof; 
 NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan shall be amended as set forth below: 

Section 3 of the Plan shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: 

“3. Shares Subject to the Plan  

The total number of Shares which may be issued under the Plan is 13,153,897. The Shares may consist, in whole or in part, of authorized and
unissued Shares, or Shares purchased on the open market. The issuance of Shares or the payment of cash upon the exercise of an Award or in consideration of the cancellation or termination of an Award shall reduce the total number of Shares available
under the Plan, as applicable. Shares which are subject to Awards which terminate or lapse without the payment of consideration may be granted again under the Plan.” 

Section 7 of the Plan shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: 

 

	 	“7.	Terms and Conditions of Restricted Shares 

  

	 	1)	Grant of Restricted Shares. The Committee also may grant Awards of Restricted Shares to any Participant selected by the Committee in such amounts and subject to such terms and conditions as determined by the
Committee. All Awards of Restricted Shares shall be evidenced by a Restricted Share Award Agreement. 

  

	 	2)	Issuance and Restrictions. Restricted Shares shall be subject to such restrictions on transferability and other restrictions as the Committee may impose (including, without limitation, limitations on the right to
vote Restricted Shares or the right to receive dividends on the Restricted Share). These restrictions may lapse separately or in combination at such times, pursuant to such circumstances, in such installments, or otherwise, as the Committee
determines at the time of the grant of the Award or thereafter. 









	 	3)	Certificates for Restricted Shares. Restricted Shares granted pursuant to this Plan may be evidenced in such manner as the Committee shall determine. If certificates representing Restricted Shares are registered
in the name of the Participant, certificates must bear an appropriate legend referring to the terms, conditions, and restrictions applicable to such Restricted Shares, and the Company may, at its discretion, retain physical possession of the
certificate until such time as all applicable restrictions lapse.”
No. 68867.

#### Manca, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 63/13026 (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the items of merchandise, designated on the invoice as “20 Micro Camera Attachments MAKAM,” are not parts of microscopes but are, in fact, camera parts, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
From: koolcarl@juno.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:47:15 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,

Carl Cushnie

Littleton, CO 80127
#### Edmund D. Crosby, Respondent, v. Calvin F. Cobb, Appellant.

Order affirmed, with costs to abide the event of the action, *jper Curiam*opinion filed with reporter.
Exhibit 4.12

 

To:                             KREOS CAPITAL IV (UK) LIMITED
 25-28 Old Burlington Street
 London W1S 2AN
 United Kingdom

 

as Lender under the Loan Facility (as defined below)

 

From:               NABRIVA THERAPEUTICS AG
 Leberstraße 20
 1110 Vienna
 Austria

 

as Borrower under the Loan Facility

 

November 20, 2015

 

Dear Madams and Sirs,
 Dear Maurizio,

 

EUR 5 million loan facility dated 4 July 2014 between NABRIVA THERAPEUTICS AG as borrower and KREOS CAPITAL IV (UK) LIMITED as lender (the Loan Facility)

 

1.                                      Reference is made to your letter dated 5 November 2015 (the Lender’s Letter) relating to the prepayment of funds pursuant to the Loan Facility. Words and expressions defined in the Loan Facility have the same meanings when used herein unless otherwise provided or the context otherwise requires.

 

2.                                      The Borrower and the Lender have agreed that against payment of € 3,463,887.39 (in words: EUR three million four hundred sixty three thousand eight hundred eight seven euros and thirty nine cents) (the Prepayment Amount) all current, contingent and future rights and obligations under and in connection with the Loan Facility shall be fully and conclusively discharged.

 

3.                                      The Prepayment Amount shall be paid within 5 business days (in words: five days) from the date hereof to the account as specified in the Lender’s Letter.

 

4.                                      This letter and any non-contractual obligations arising out of or in connection with it are governed by English law.

 

5.                                      This letter is executed and delivered, and is intended to take effect, as a deed by all parties.

 

6.                                      Please execute this letter as indicated below to confirm your acknowledgment and agreement to the above.

 

Yours faithfully

 

1











 

	
for and on behalf   of
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
NABRIVA THERAPEUTICS AG.
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
as Borrower under   the Loan Facility
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
by:
    	
/s/ Ralf Schmid
    	
 
    	
by:
    	
/s/ Stefan Reisinger
    
	
Name:
    	
Ralf Schmid
    	
Name: 
    	
Stefan Reisinger
    
	
Title:
    	
COO / CFO
    	
Title: 
    	
VP Finance and Treasurer
    
					


 

Acknowledged and agreed for and on behalf of:

 

	
KREOS CAPITAL IV (UK)   LIMITED
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
as Lender under the   Loan Facility
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
by:
    	
/s/ Maurizio Pettibon
    	
 
    	
by:
    	
 
    
	
Name:
    	
Maurizio Pettibon
    	
Name:
    	
 
    
	
Title:
    	
Director
    	
Title:
    	
 
    


 

2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-27-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-29-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-27-1998
<CASH>                                         681,000
<SECURITIES>                                11,529,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,489,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  2,385,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             9,009,000
<PP&E>                                      10,252,000
<DEPRECIATION>                             (6,718,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              24,959,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,831,000
<BONDS>                                      1,625,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       141,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  19,362,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                24,959,000
<SALES>                                     14,007,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            14,007,000
<CGS>                                       11,558,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               11,558,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             6,718,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           (110,000)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,431,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   310,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,121,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,121,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.23
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.23
        

</TABLE>
From: ejpopow@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:28:05 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,

Eric Popowski

Issaquah, WA 98027
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

September 28, 2009 

d0921 

Order 

 

September 28, 2009 

138851 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 138851 

 COA: 282698 

Kalamazoo CC: 07-000625-FC 

CHRISTOPHER STEVEN HOLDER, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 14, 2009 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
From: Leo Pimentel

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Religious Employer

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:55:44 AM

To Whom It May Concern:

The current definition of religious employer does not provide true conscience protection for

those committed to preserving life. Health care plans should not be forced to violate the

moral and religious convictions of providers or employees in order to participate in the health

care system. Requiring such an unacceptable demand threatens both universal access to

health care and religious freedom of conscience.

Regards,

Leo Pimentel

Dallas, TX 75229
EXHIBIT 99.1



           CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                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 on Form 10K of First
Keystone Corporation (the "Company") for the period ending December
31, 2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
"Report"), I, J. Gerald Bazewicz, President and CEO, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as added by  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.  To my knowledge, the information contained in the Report
       fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
       condition and results of operations of the Company as of
       and for the period covered by the Report.






                               /s/ J. Gerald Bazewicz
                               J. Gerald Bazewicz
                               President and CEO



March 25, 2003


                               25
H. Res. 1435 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

September 23, 2008. 

Whereas November 9, 2008, through November 10, 2008, 

marks the 70th anniversary of Kristallnacht, The Night 

of Broken Glass; 

Whereas during Kristallnacht, hundreds of synagogues in 

Germany and Austria were burned and destroyed, businesses and homes were ransacked, scores of innocent people were killed because they were Jews, and thousands of 

others were arrested and sent to concentration camps; 

Whereas Kristallnacht was sanctioned by the Nazi state to 

foment anti-Semitism and terrorize Jewish citizens; 

Whereas the shattered panes of glass that littered sidewalks, 

most of it coming from the shop windows of Jewish 

stores, gave the pogrom its name, Kristallnacht or 

‘‘Night of Broken Glass’’; 

Whereas Kristallnacht marked the Nazis’ first centrally organized operation of large-scale, anti-Jewish violence; 

Whereas the lack of any serious diplomatic consequences 

from civilized nations led the Governments of Germany 

and Austria to believe that further atrocities would go 

unpunished; 

Whereas Kristallnacht served as a prelude to the Second 

World War, to the death of millions of innocent people, 
2 

•HRES 1435 EH 

and to the mass murders and carnage on a scale never 

before seen in human history; 

Whereas the reign of the Nazi government marks one of the 

darkest periods in civilized history; and 

Whereas Kristallnacht should remind us all that evil must be 

confronted forcefully and the civilized world cannot watch 

idly while barbarism and mass murder are committed 

against innocent peoples: Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

(1) recognizes the 70th anniversary of 

Kristallnacht, The Night of Broken Glass; 

(2) pays tribute to the over 6,000,000 Jewish people who were killed during the Holocaust; and 

(3) recommits the United States to continued vigilance against these kind of atrocities and urges the 

international community to fight against organized aggression directed at religious, ethnic, and other minority 

groups wherever it may occur. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. The New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company et al., Appellants, *v.*The Public Service Commission of the State of New York, Second District, et al., Respondents.

Reported below, 146 App. Div. 900.

(Argued January 6, 1913;

decided January 14, 1913.)

Motion to dismiss an appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth *677judicial department, entered October 11, 1911, which dismissed a writ of certiorari and confirmed the proceedings of the defendant Public Service Commission granting a certificate that public convenience and a necessity required the construction of the proposed Buffalo Frontier Terminal Railroad.

The motion was made upon the grounds that the appellants had failed to perfect the appeal by filing the required return and that no questions of law were involved which could be reviewed by the Court of Appeals.

*Frank B. Church*for motion.

*S. F. Carr*opposed.

Motion denied, with ten dollars costs.