alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
A89A1939.

#### ZACKERY v. THE STATE.

(391 SE2d 15)

Birdsong, Judge.

Anthony Zackery appeals his convictions of entering an automobile with intent to commit theft and obstruction of a police officer with violence. *Held:*

1. Zackery contends the trial court erred by denying his motion for mistrial after a police officer testified that he had known Zackery for almost his “entire four years in law enforcement.” Zackery contends this testimony impermissibly placed his character in issue. The transcript shows the response was to one question by the trial judge (asking how well the officer knew Zackery) in a series of questions testing the officer’s identification of Zackery. The transcript also shows that after the motion was denied Zackery refused the court’s suggestion for remedial instructions.

“[W]hether to grant a mistrial is within the sound discretion of the trial court and his ruling will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion. *Ladson v. State,*248 Ga. 470 (285 SE2d 508) (1981).” *Buxton v. State,*253 Ga. 137, 139 (317 SE2d 538). We do not find the policeman’s testimony required a mistrial. In the circumstances of this case, there was no abuse of discretion by the trial judge.

2. The second enumeration contends that the trial court erred by denying Zackery’s motion for a new trial on the general grounds. We disagree. “In passing upon the general grounds, this court reviews not the weight but the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict. ... So long as there is ‘any evidence’ to support the jury’s verdict, it will not be disturbed on appeal. *Eubanks v. State,*240 Ga. 544, 546 (242 SE2d 41) (1978).” *Pierce v. State,*243 Ga. 454-455 (254 SE2d 838). Review of the transcript in a light most favorable to the verdict “reveals ample evidence from which any rational trier of fact could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that [Zackery] was guilty of [the offenses] charged.” *Jackson v. Virginia,*443 U. S. 307 (99 SC *4352781, 61 LE2d 560); *Baggett v. State,*257 Ga. 735 (2) (363 SE2d 257).

Decided February 7, 1990.

*Donald T. Wells, Jr., Kathleen J. Anderson,*for appellant.

*Harry N. Gordon, District Attorney, Steve C. Jones, Assistant District Attorney,*for appellee.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Deen, P. J., and Cooper, J., concur.*
---

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Mark Jarvis, President and Chief Executive Officer
  of Hard Creek Nickel Corporation, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
  1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
  that:

(1) the Annual Report on Form 20-F of Hard Creek Nickel Corporation
  for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 (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 Hard Creek Nickel Corporation.

Dated: June 30, 2008

| | /s/
      Mark Jarvis                 
| | --------------------------------------
| | Mark Jarvis                           
| | President and Chief Executive Officer,
| | Hard Creek Nickel Corporation         

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 Hard Creek Nickel
  Corporation and will be retained by Hard Creek Nickel Corporation and furnished
  to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
Exhibit 21

                                  Subsidiaries

     Name                                         State of Incorporation
     ----                                         ----------------------
     Premier Bank                                 Pennsylvania
     PBI Capital Trust                            Delaware
     Lenders Abstract, LLC                        Pennsylvania


<PAGE>
No. 58827.

protest 233788-K (New York).

#### William E. Martin Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

An examination of the record failing to disclose evidence sufficient to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the collector’s action, the protest was overruled.
No. 51541.

#### Protests 40808-K/12203, etc., of Church Point Wholesale Grocery Co. et al. (New Orleans).

Opinion by

Eicwall, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
P. 1


# OAR Box 1830 Prepped byOllie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 159 ) IV-C-126 Docket Number: 

# A-87-1 1

Printed 11/13/20087:20:59 AM Sheet 159of 232P. 2



### fj&J\

UNITE D STATE S 

### ENVIRONMENTA LPROTECTIO N AGENC Y^ ~ C 

### " ' ^

^ \-4*i*^ /

AN N ARBOR
. MICHIGA N 48105 ••r . ", . M i P-JO** * OFFIC E O F Ary , . , •. AI R AN D FIADIATIO N 

### SE P 

## I 193

8
Ms . Caro l Scot t America nPetroleum Institut e 122 0 L Street , NW Washington , D C 2000 5
Dea r Ms . Scott : O nJun e 30 , 198 8 EPAhel d a publi c worksho p o nth e propose d tes t procedure s fo r evaporativ e and refuelin g emissio n whic hhad accompanyin g it s refuelin g and volatilit yNPRMs . A t tha t worksho p w e describe d severa l change s t o th e propose d procedure s designe d t o simplif yth e refuelin g tes t and t o insur e tha t non-integrate d refuelin g control s o r evaporative-onl ycontrol s woul d hav e equivalen t in-us e performanc e t o integrate d refuelin g contro l systems . Enclose d fo r you r revie wi s a cop yo f draf t regulation s embodyin g th e change s describe d a t th e workshop , plu s othe r lesse r change s resultin g fro mEPA' s revie wo f tes t procedur e comments . Thes e regulation s wil l giv e yo u ful l detail s o f th e change s whic hw e ar e anticipatin g fo r ou r upcomin g reproposa l action . I f yo u hav e anyquestions , pleas e contac t Pete r Hutchin s o f m

ystaf f a t (313 ) 668-4340 . T o assis t i nou r incorporatio no f you r view s o nthes e draf t regulation s int o ou r reproposal , w e reques t tha t yo u suppl yu s you r comment s b yn o late r tha nSeptembe r 15 , 1988 . Sincerel yyours ,

Gray , <Jr . Directo r • • Emissio nContro l Technolog yDivisio n Enclosur e cc : Docke t A-87-1 1 6309 W

# r P. 3

ENVIRONMENTA LPROTECTIO N 

### SE P 

### - 2 198

8 CF.MT:./-.'
. u'-JCKE T

l_> , - , .-, - - yr.\
Motion Granted; Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed

September 19 , 2013

.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 13

- 00702

- CV

WILLIAMS H. SMITH, J R. , Appellant

V.
AMERICAN GENERAL LIF E INSURANCE CO. AND DISABILITY INSURANCE SPECIALIST , LLC , AS AGENT AND EMPLOYE E OF AMERICAN GENERAL LIF E INSURANCE CO. , Appellee s

On Appeal from the 11th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2011

- 36144

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

This is an attempted appeal from a judgment signed February 18
, 201 3

. A motion for new trial was timely filed. Appellant = s notice of appeal was filed August 2, 2013. When appellant has filed a timely motion for new trial, motion to modify the judgment, motion to reinstate, or request for findings of fact and concl usion of law, the notice of appeal must be filed within ninety days after the date the judgment is2

signed. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(a). Appellant = s notice of appeal was not filed timely. A motion for extension of time is necessarily implied when an appel lant, acting in good faith, files a notice of appeal beyond the time allowed by Rule 26.1,
but within the fifteen

- day grace period provided by Rule 26.3 for filing a motion
for extension of time. See Verburgt v. Dorner , 959 S.W.2d 615, 617

- 18 (1997) (cons truing the predecessor to Rule 26). Appellant = s notice of appeal was not filed
within the fifteen

- day period provided by Rule 26.3

. On August 22, 2013 , appellees filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a)

. Appellant ’s response urges that this Court does not have jurisdiction because the trial court's summary judgment order is an interlocutory order. See Lehmann v. Har

- Con Corp. , 39 S.W.3d 191 (Tex. 2001). Because the trial court's intent to adjudicate al l claims and parties appears on the face of the order, we disagree that the order appealed from is interlocutory.
Id. (holding that "[a]n express adjudication of all parties and claims in a case is not interlocutory merely because the record does not affor d a legal basis for the adjudication"). Appellant's response otherwise fails to demonstrate that the notice of appeal in this cause was timely filed or filed within the applicable grace period. Therefore, we are without jurisd iction to entertain the appeal. Accordingly, the motion is granted and the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Boyce, McCally and Busby

.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
FROM THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 AND IS THIS
FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                              65
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,967
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 7,050
<PP&E>                                           8,626
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (1,346)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  43,586
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           12,426
<BONDS>                                          6,654
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            11
<OTHER-SE>                                      25,170
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    43,586
<SALES>                                         15,609
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                15,609
<CGS>                                           14,920
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   14,920
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (81)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 453
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,223
<INCOME-TAX>                                       529
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                694
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       694
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.07


</TABLE>
-                      -                        -  Acerca de FEMA 
                      - Noticias y Contenido Multimedia
                      -  Noticias y Contenido Multimedia 
                      -  Comunicados de Prensa 
                      -  Blog 
                      -  Eventos 
                      -  Hojas informativas 
                      -  FEMA Live 
                      -  La Aplicación Móvil de FEMA 
                      -  Boletines 
                      -  Podcast 
                      -  Medios Sociales 
                      -  Acerca de Nosotros 
                      -  Informes y Datos 
                      -  FEMA in Action 

# Comunicados de Prensa

Se abre un Centro de Recuperación por Desastre en el condado Washington

12 de abril de 2024

El Departamento de Seguridad Nacional anuncia $300 millones en fondos directos para comunidades que reciben inmigrantes y $340 millones para un nuevo proceso competitivo de otorgamientos 

12 de abril de 2024

Los fondos de FEMA puede asistir a todas las personas elegibles

11 de abril de 2024

FEMA asigna sobre $711 millones a la AAA para contadores de agua potable

11 de abril de 2024

Presentar solicitudes de FEMA falsas puede dar lugar a cargos penales

10 de abril de 2024

Esté alerta al fraude, después de la tormenta severa e inundación del 21 al 23 de enero de 2024 en el condado San Diego

10 de abril de 2024

El Centro de Recuperación por Desastre del condado Macomb cierra mañana

9 de abril de 2024

Asistencia disponible para los vehículos dañados por las tormentas severas e inundaciones en Rhode Island

9 de abril de 2024

Los residentes del condado Pinellas reciben un gran descuento en las tarifas del seguro de inundación tras obtener una mejor calificación comunitaria

9 de abril de 2024

¿Daños en su caldera, pozo o sistema séptico? FEMA puede ayudar

9 de abril de 2024

-                Página actual            1 
-                Página            2 
-                Página            3 
- …
-  Siguiente páginaNext › 
-  Última páginaLast » 

Displaying 1 - 10 of 2521

In an effort to keep FEMA.gov current, please see the content archive for information prior to January 20, 2021.

Regresar al inicio
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<CIK>                         0000878377
<NAME>                        CPX CORP.
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
<CURRENCY>                    US DOLLARS

<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAR-31-2001
<PERIOD-START>                                 APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                          1,278
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                1,278
<PP&E>                                              0
<DEPRECIATION>                                      0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  1,278
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              32
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                           15
<OTHER-SE>                                      1,231
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    1,278
<SALES>                                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    0
<CGS>                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   15
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     2
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 2
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                        2
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       0



</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

____________

No. 99-50031

____________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ex rel, RON

WEDDINGTON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

SCOTT & WHITE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL; SCOTT &

WHITE CLINIC; SCOTT, SHERWOOD AND BRINDLEY,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

(W-98-CV-208)

November 8, 1999

Before KING, ChiefJudge, andREYNALDO G. GARZA and EMILIOM. GARZA, Circuit

Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

AFFIRMED. See 5th Cir. R. 47.6.
---

CERTIFICATION OF
  CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ANDCHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
  PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, G.W. Norman Wareham, Chief Executive Officer and Chief
  Financial Officer of Normark Ventures Corp. (the “Company”), hereby
  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:

| | (i)  | the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company,
        for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2003, and to which this certification
        is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the “Report”) fully complies
        with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
        Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | ---- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| | (ii) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
        in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
        of the Company.                                                                                                                                                        

| | By:    | “G.W. Norman Wareham”  
| | ------ | -----------------------
| | Name:  | G.W. Norman Wareham    
| | Title: | Chief Executive Officer
| |        | Chief Financial Officer
| | Date:  | July 4, 2005           

A signed original of this written statement required by
  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 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.

This certification accompanies the Form 10-KSB to which
  it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
  and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under
  the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made
  before or after the date of the Form 10-KSB), irrespective of any general incorporation
  language contained in such filing.

---
Document

Exhibit 10.13


THIRD AMENDMENT TO GE GLOBAL EMPLOYEE SERVICES AGREEMENT
This Third Amendment to the GE Global Employee Services Agreement (this “Amendment”) is made and entered into on December 2, 2020 with an effective date of October 1, 2020, by and between General Electric Company, a New York corporation (“GE”) in its name and on its behalf and on behalf of its Affiliates, subsidiaries, partnerships and branches, and Baker Hughes Holdings LLC, formerly known as Baker Hughes, A GE company, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“Baker Hughes”) in its name and on its behalf and on behalf of its Affiliates, subsidiaries, partnerships, and branches, and amends the GE Global Employee Services Agreement, effective as of July 3, 2017, by and between GE and Baker Hughes and amended on May 24, 2018, and July 31, 2019 (the “GE Global Employee Services Agreement”). Capitalized terms used but not defined in this Amendment shall have the respective meanings ascribed to them in the GE Global Employee Services Agreement.
    WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend the GE Global Employee Services Agreement, as set forth herein.
    NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:
1.Schedule 1.1 of the GE Global Employee Services Agreement is hereby replaced in its entirety with Schedule A attached to this Amendment.
2.The provisions of Article II of the GE Global Employee Services Agreement are incorporated herein by reference, mutatis mutandis, to be applied and construed consistent with the application of such provisions in the GE Global Employee Services Agreement. This Amendment shall constitute a written instrument executed by each of the parties in accordance with Section 3.9 of the GE Global Employee Services Agreement.
3.Except as specifically amended by this Amendment, all other terms and conditions of the GE Global Employee Services Agreement shall continue in full force and effect.


[Signature Page Follows]










IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Amendment to be duly executed as of the date first above written.






																		
				GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY






By:    /s/ John Godsman                
Name:    John Godsman                    
Title:    VP, Business Development            

						
				By:	/s/ John Godsman
				Name:	John Godsman
				Title:	VP, Business Development
				
				
				BAKER HUGHES HOLDINGS, LLC
				
				By:	/s/ Lee Whitley
				Name:	Lee Whitley
				Title: 	Vice President and Corporate Secretary
Exhibit 10.76






                                                                    July 1, 1997



Arthur A. Siciliano, Ph.D.
3 Pavia Place
Framingham, MA   01701

                      Re: Amendment of Employment Agreement

Dear Art,

This letter agreement serves to further amend the employment  agreement dated as
of May 16,  1990,  by and  between  you and  PolyMedica  Industries,  Inc.  (the
"Company"),  as amended by certain letter  agreements  dated as of June 1, 1991;
December 5, 1991;  March 18, 1993;  March 31, 1994; April 11, 1995; and April 3,
1996 (together, the "Employment Agreement").

1.       Term of Employment.  The Employment Period, as defined in Section 2 of
         the Employment Agreement, is extended to May 31, 1999.

2.       Salary.  The Base Salary, as defined in Section 3.1. of the Employment
         Agreement, is increased to $235,000 effective August 1, 1997.

3.       Vacation.  Section 3.4 of the Employment Agreement is amended so that
         Executive may take four weeks of paid vacation during each year.

If the foregoing is acceptable to you, please indicate your agreement by signing
a copy of this letter agreement and returning it to the undersigned.

                                                      Very truly yours,


                                                      /s/ Steven J. Lee
                                                      Steven J. Lee
                                                      Chairman and Chief
                                                      Executive Officer
ACCEPTED AND AGREED TO:


/s/ Arthur A. Siciliano
------------------------------
Arthur A. Siciliano
No. 55116.

#### China Overseas, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 157713-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.