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

Exhibit 10.6(b)
SCHEDULE OF EXECUTIVE OFFICERS WHO HAVE EXECUTED A CHANGE IN CONTROL AGREEMENT IN THE FORM FILED AS EXHIBIT 10.1(a) TO THE QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10‐Q OF THE COMPANY FOR THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2016 (this “Schedule”)
This Schedule of Executive Officers Who Have Executed a Change in Control Agreement relates to the form of Change in Control Agreement filed by Independent Bank Group, Inc. as Exhibit 10.1(a) to its Quarterly Report on Form 10‐Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2016, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2016 (the “Form Agreement”). This Schedule is included pursuant to Instruction 2 of Item 601(a) of Regulation S-K for the purpose of setting forth the details in which the specific agreements executed in the form of the Form Agreement differ from the Form Agreement, and, in particular to set forth the persons who, with Independent Bank Group, Inc., were parties to the Change in Control Agreements in such form as of March 1, 2021.
									
	Executive Officer Who is a Party to such Change in Control Agreement	Date of Change in Control Agreement	The number of times the sum of (a) Executive’s current base salary plus (b) Executive’s target total annual bonus for the year of termination paid upon a Change in Control
	David R. Brooks	July 26, 2016	Three (3) times
	Daniel W. Brooks	July 26, 2016	Two (2) times
	Michelle S. Hickox	July 26, 2016	Two (2) times
	James C. White	January 31, 2018	Two (2) times
	James P. Tippit	January 31, 2018	Two (2) times
	Mark S. Haynie	January 31, 2018	Two (2) times
	Michael B. Hobbs	December 11, 2020	Two (2) times
DISMISS; and Opinion Filed July 3, 2019.

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-18-01009-CV

AJANI REESE, Appellant

V.

HIGHLAND PARK APARTMENTS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-18-03315-E

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Bridges, Brown, and Nowell

Opinion by Justice Brown

On March 8, 2019, appellant filed his brief on the merits. Deeming the brief deficient, we 

directed appellant to file an amended brief no later than April 8, 2019 and subsequently extended 

that deadline to May 28, 2019. To date, however, the amended brief has not been filed.

Our letter directing appellant to file the amended brief by April 8, 2019 cautioned appellant 

that failure to file the brief could result in the appeal being dismissed without further notice. See 

TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b),(c). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. See id. 38.8(a)(1), 

43.3(b),(c).

181009F.P05

/Ada Brown/

ADA BROWN

JUSTICE
–2–

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

AJANI REESE, Appellant

No. 05-18-01009-CV V.

HIGHLAND PARK APARTMENTS, 

Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law 

No. 5, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-18-03315-E.

Opinion delivered by Justice Brown, 

Justices Bridges and Nowell participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal.

Judgment entered this 3rd day of July, 2019.
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document
  



EXHIBIT 10(a)  


 
 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS    
    


        We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (File No. 333-05606) and in
the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (File No. 333-12716) of Waterford Wedgwood plc of our report dated June 4, 2003, except for Note 33, as to
which the date is September 22, 2003, relating to the consolidated financial statements and our report dated June 4, 2003 on the financial statement schedule, which appear in this
Form 20-F. 


PricewaterhouseCoopers

Chartered Accountants

Dublin, Republic of Ireland 


October 1,
2003 


110











QuickLinks


CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS
Exhibit 13.1



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 Telefónica
Móviles, S.A. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the period ending December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned hereby certify that to the best of
our knowledge:



| | 1. |  | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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.
| | -- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: July 9, 2004



By:

/S/  ANTONIO VIANA-BAPTISTAName: Antonio Viana-Baptista Title: Chairman and Chief Executive Officer




Date: July 9, 2004



By:

/S/  ERNESTO LÓPEZ MOZOName: Ernesto López Mozo Title: Chief Financial Officer
LC/MS ANALYSIS REPORT
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

CAROLINE BEHREND, et al. : CIVIL ACTION

:

v. :

:

COMCAST CORPORATION, et al. : NO. 03-6604

ORDER

AND NOW, this 4th day of June, 2009, in accordance with the accompanying Memorandum,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiffs’ Experts’ Reports and Preclude

Use of Stricken Evidence (Docket Entry No. 334) is DENIED.

2. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Under Seal Opposition to Defendants Motion to

Strike Portions of Plaintiffs’ Expert Reports and Preclude Use of Stricken Evidence

and Declaration of Daniel H. Charest (Docket Entry No. 337) is GRANTED.

3. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Sur-Reply (Docket Entry No. 341) is

GRANTED.

4. Defendants’ Motion to Seal Memorandum in Opposition and Expert Reports (Docket

Entry No. 342) is GRANTED.

5. Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File Under Seal Defendants’ Expert Rebuttal

Reports (Docket Entry No. 346) is GRANTED.

6. Discovery is REOPENED for a period of four months to permit Defendants to

conduct further discovery into the factual basis of, and rebuttal to, Plaintiffs’ new

expert opinion on DBS foreclosure of regional sports programming.

7. All deadlines contained in the Joint Stipulation and Scheduling Order entered

Case 2:03-cv-06604-JP Document 369 Filed 06/04/09 Page 1 of 2
-2-

January 15, 2009, shall be revisited by the parties and extended by stipulation (or by

the Court if the parties are unable to so agree) for a period not to exceed four months.

The parties shall submit a stipulation no later than June 12, 2009.

8. The hearing on Plaintiffs’ Renewed Motion to Certify the Philadelphia Class,

scheduled for June 10, 2009, is CONTINUED. The Court has reset the date to

October 13, 2009, but is amenable to an earlier date satisfactory to the Court and the

parties. The parties may suggest alternate dates in the stipulation to be filed by June

12, 2009.

9. The trial date of this matter will be revisited after other deadlines have been set, but

shall be no later than May 3, 2010.

BY THE COURT:

s/John R. Padova

 

John R. Padova, J.

Case 2:03-cv-06604-JP Document 369 Filed 06/04/09 Page 2 of 2
No. 57198.

protests 130936-K, etc. (New York).

#### Brenner Bros. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Olivee, C. J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of platinum fox fur skins, undressed, similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *O. Brager-Larsen*(36 C. C. P. A. 1, C. A. D. 388). The claim for free entry under paragraph 1681 was therefore sustained.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EDWARD and ELIZABETH PEARSON :

: CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-CV-4250

Plaintiffs, :

:

v. :

:

BAYER CORPORATION;

BAYER AG;

GLAXOSMITHKLINE, PLC;

GLAXOSMITHKLINE;

SMITHKLINE BEECHAM

:

:

:

:

:

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

:

Defendants. :

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

To the Clerk of the Court:

Kindly enter the appearances of Hope S. Freiwald, Aline Fairweather, Erin

Brennan and Kirstin J. Miller as attorneys for defendant SmithKline Beecham Corporation d/b/a

GlaxoSmithKline.

Respectfully Submitted,

_____________________________ _____________________________

Hope S. Freiwald Aline Fairweather

_____________________________ _____________________________

Erin Brennan Kirstin J. Miller

DECHERT PRICE & RHOADS

4000 Bell Atlantic Tower

1717 Arch Street

Philadelphia, PA 19103-2793

(215) 994-4000

Case 2:02-cv-04250-JK Document 7 Filed 10/02/2002 Page 1 of 1
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-502

In Re: RICHARD L. WRIGHT; EDNA E. WRIGHT,

Petitioners.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-97-3167-L)

Submitted: March 17, 1998 Decided: June 23, 1998

Before MURNAGHAN, WILKINS, and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Richard L. Wright, Edna E. Wright, Petitioners Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Petitioners filed this petition for a writ of mandamus seeking

to have this court direct the district court to act on their

complaint. Because there has been no undue delay in the district

court, we deny the petition. We grant leave to proceed in forma

pauperis, and we deny Petitioners’ motions for a temporary

restraining order, an interlocutory injunction, and to expand the

record. We note that the motion to expedite is moot. 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.

PETITION DENIED
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1077 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1077

   To direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services to amend the 
         mission statement of the Food and Drug Administration.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 9, 2017

  Mr. Manchin introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
  referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services to amend the 
         mission statement of the Food and Drug Administration.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Changing the Culture of the FDA 
Act''.

SEC. 2. MISSION STATEMENT OF THE FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION.

    The Secretary of Health and Human Services, acting through the 
Commissioner of Food and Drugs, is directed to amend the mission 
statement of the Food and Drug Administration to include the following 
statement: ``The FDA is also responsible for protecting the public 
health by strongly considering the danger of addiction and overdose 
death associated with prescription opioid medications when approving 
these medications and when regulating the manufacturing, marketing, and 
distribution of opioid medications.''.
                                 <all>
```
No. 60755.

#### Paul A. Straub & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 287763-K, etc. (New York).

*502Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the

merchandise consists of figures the same in all material respects as those the subject of *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.*v. *United States*(39 C. C. P. A. 15, C. A. D. 458), the merchandise was held dutiable as follows: (1) The items marked with the letter “A” at 20 percent under paragraph 1547 (a); and (2) the items marked with the letter “B” at 10 percent under said paragraph, as modified by the Annecy Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T. D. 52373), supplemented by Presidential proclamation (T. D. 52476).
# C_2018005EN.01001401.xml

| 8.1.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 5/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.1.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 5/14

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 November 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Tünkers France, Tünkers Maschinenbau GmbH v Expert France

(Case C-641/16) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Insolvency proceedings - Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 - Court having jurisdiction - Action for unfair competition brought in the context of insolvency proceedings - Action brought by a company having its registered office in another Member State against the assignee of part of the business of a company subject to insolvency proceedings - Action not part of the proceedings or action deriving directly from those proceedings and closely connected with them))

(2018/C 005/18)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Tünkers France, Tünkers Maschinenbau GmbH

Applicants:

Defendant: Expert France

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings must be interpreted as meaning that an action for damages for unfair competition by which the assignee of part of the business acquired in the course of insolvency proceedings is accused of misrepresenting itself as being the exclusive distributor of articles manufactured by the debtor does not fall within the jurisdiction of the court which opened the insolvency proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 70, 6.3.2017.

1

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

FRANK BERRYMAN, :

Petitioner, :

: CIVIL ACTION

v. :

: NO. 10-5243

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, :

Respondent. : CRIMINAL ACTION

:

: 04-0425

ORDER

AND NOW, this _____ day of July, 2012, upon consideration of Petitioner Frank

Berryman's Habeas Corpus Petition to Vacate/Set Aside/Correct Sentence Pursuant to U.S.C. § 2255

(Doc. 149), and the Government's Memorandum in Opposition (Doc. 157), IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED AND DECREED that Petitioner’s Habeas Corpus Petition to Vacate/Set Aside/Correct

Sentence Pursuant to U.S.C. § 2255 is DENIED.

1

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s pro se Motion to File a Reply to

Government’s Response to Petitioner’s Habeas Corpus Petition (Doc. 158) is DENIED AS MOOT.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case shall be marked CLOSED for statistical

purposes.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Petrese B. Tucker

____________________________

Hon. Petrese B. Tucker, U.S.D.J.

This Order accompanies the Court’s Memorandum Opinion, dated July __, 2012.

1

Case 2:04-cr-00425-PBT Document 161 Filed 07/20/12 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:04-cr-00425-PBT Document 161 Filed 07/20/12 Page 2 of 2
SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

473R-742.11EMEIFERNa 

2 

*.17:-''.74;."4T1';051(EPANINZWAKe'75'11 ,1-;f7,`_:. .• 

Having reviewed the briefs and the record, we approve the 

panel's recommendation that Kossack be suspended subject to conditions. 

However, in weighing Kossack's disregard of the responsibilities of 

running a legal practice and supervising his staff against the fraudulent 

and well-concealed conduct of his staff, we determine that a shorter period 

of suspension is appropriate. Further, while conditions are appropriate, 

we determine that the panel's recommended conditions require 

modification to better protect the public. We therefore reject the 

recommended suspension term of three years and instead direct that 

Kossack be suspended for 18 months, with the conditions that (1) Kossack 

be required to take and pass the MPRE prior to applying for 

reinstatement; (2) if reinstated, Kossack shall enter into a two-year 

mentoring agreement with a mentor approved by the state bar; the mentor 

shall have access to and control over Kossack's trust account, and the 

mentor shall make quarterly written reports to bar counsel regarding 

Kossack's law practice and trust account; (3) if reinstated, Kossack's 

mentor shall determine whether Kossack shall (a) complete a substance 

abuse evaluation and comply with any recommendations or (b) participate 

in the Lawyers Concerned for Lawyers program"; (4) if reinstated, in 

addition to the customary required annual CLE, in his first year of 

reinstatement, Kossack shall complete four CLE credits in ethics and six 

CLE credits in accounting, trust account management, and/or law practice 

management; and (5) Kossack shall pay the costs of the disciplinary 

proceedings before applying for reinstatement. 

'Alternatively, if, along with any petition for reinstatement, Kossack 

provides evidence that he has passed a drug test within the 30 days prior 

to the petition being filed, this requirement may be waived. 
C.J. 

Pickering , op 

• - , J 

3 

130; fffirhila '51•1"41M1q1P- 1";:.■ 7';:ff ra 

Accordingly, we hereby suspend Robert K. Kossack from the 

practice of law for 18 months from the date of this order. In addition, 

Kossack must comply with the conditions set forth above. 

It is so ORDERED. 

Gibbons 

Le-e-c-a-1 

Hardesty 

Parraguirre 

( 1 .E) 

Douglas 

, J. 

Saitta 

cc: Jeffrey R. Albregts, Chair, Southern Nevada Disciplinary Board 

David Clark, Bar Counsel 

Kimberly K. Farmer, Executive Director, State Bar of Nevada 

Robert J. Kossack 

Perry Thompson, Admissions Office, United States Supreme Court 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

klikZEWIZEINEENEEZE
EXHIBIT 32.1
                                                                    ------------
               SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


            Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, the undersigned officer of GMX
Resources Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certifies that the Company's Annual
Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2005 (the "Report") fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.

Date:  March 30, 2006
                                       Ken L. Kenworthy, Sr.
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       Chief Financial Officer
No. 60748.

#### D. C. Andrews & Company *v.*United States,

protest 278726-K (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

There being nothing before the court tending in any way to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the classification by the collector, the protest was overruled.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 7944** 

LESTER O’NEIL WOODRUFF , Petitioner

- Appellant ,
v. HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director Virginia Department of Corrections , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia , at Lynchburg
. Norman K. Moon , Senior District Judge. ( 6:12

- cv - 00072

- NKM )

Submitted : April 14, 2014 Decided: April 16, 2014

Before WILKINSON and MOTZ , Circuit Judges , and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge
.
Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Lester O’Neil Woodruff, Appellant Pro Se. Rosemary Virginia Bourne, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opi nions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Lester O’Neil Woodruff seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition
. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of ap peal was not timely filed. Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell , 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). The district court’s order was entered on the docket

on October 23, 2013 . The notice of appeal was filed on November 25, 2013
. * Because Woodruff failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny Woodruff’s motion for a certificate of appealability, d eny leave to proceed in forma pauperis , and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

* For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266 (1988).3 materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
Exhibit 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PRSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARABANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly report of Rosedale Decorative Products, Ltd.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Alan Fine, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. 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 and Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


/s/ Alan Fine
Alan Fine
Chief Executive Officer

November 14, 2002