alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

PAUL G. MEAD

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 19

- 2262

[ October 10, 2019 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.800(a) motion from the Circuit Court for

the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Martin County ; Sherwood Bauer , Judge;

L.T. Case No. 432006CF001665

.

Paul G. Mead, Daytona Beach, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed

. See Harris v. State , 184 So. 3d 550 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015).

W ARNER

, G ERBER and F ORST , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
No. 64337.

protests 59/8657, etc. (Buffalo).

#### C. J. Tower & Sons of Buffalo, Inc., et al. v. United States,

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of prepared or preserved pork similar in all material respects to that the subject of *C. J. Tower & Sons*v. *United States*(43 Cust. Ct. 36, C.D. 2100), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
- 1 - 

Alexander Van der Bellen 

Managing Director and 

Associate General Counsel 

Delta Air Lines, Inc. 

1212 New York Avenue NW 

Washington, DC 20005 

202.842.4184 

sascha.vanderbellen@delta.com

February 24, 2010 

Dennis DeVany 

Chief, EAS and Domestic Analysis Division 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Ave, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Re: Joint Notice of Mesaba and Pinnacle 

Regarding EAS service at Columbia, MO 

Docket OST-2006-23931 

Dear Mr. DeVany: 

On behalf of Mesaba Aviation, Inc. d/b/a Delta Connection, and Pinnacle Airlines, Inc. d/b/a 

Delta Connection we respectfully notify the Department of the change in EAS operating carrier 

at Columbia, Missouri. 

Effective February 11, 2010, Pinnacle began operating 1 of 3 roundtrips in the Columbia, 

Missouri – Memphis market with 50-seat CRJ equipment. The remaining 2 roundtrips continue 

to be operated by Mesaba, the carrier selected to provide service using Saab 340 aircraft in 

Order 2008-5-2. Effective April 6, 2010, Pinnacle will operate all three of Columbia’s roundtrips 

to Memphis utilizing 50-seat CRJ equipment. 

The community is very pleased with the enhanced Delta Connection regional jet service 

provided by Pinnacle. In light of the change in operating carriers, we respectfully request that 

Pinnacle and/or Mesaba be compensated for providing Essential Air Service at Columbia at the 

agreed contract rate. We anticipate that Pinnacle will continue to provide this service on a going 

forward basis. Columbia has responded well to Delta Connection service, and the need for 

additional capacity together with the retirement of Saab 340 aircraft from Mesaba’s fleet 

prompted the change in operating carriers. Mesaba and Pinnacle both concur in the submission 

of this letter. 

Thank you for your consideration and assistance in this matter. 

Sincerely, 

Alexander Van der Bellen 

cc: mayor@gocolumbiamo.com 

KAF@GoColumbiaMo.com 

John Spanjers, President, Mesaba 

Phil Trenary, President, Pinnacle
Exhibit
      15













May
      3,
      2006





Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission


450
      Fifth Street,
      N.W.


Washington,
      D.C.
      20549





Commissioners:





We
      are aware that our report dated May 3, 2006 on our review of interim financial
      information of UniSource Energy Corporation (the "Company") for the three month  period  ended
      March 31,
      2006 and
      included in the
      Company's quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2006
      is
      incorporated by reference in the Company’s Registration Statements on Form S-8
      (Nos.333-43765, 333-43767, 333-43769, 333-53309, 333-53333, 333-53337 and
      333-99317), and on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-31043, 333-93769, 333-103392 and
      333-126141).




Very
                  truly
                  yours,/s/
                  PricewaterhouseCoopers LLPPricewaterhouseCoopers
                  LLPChicago,
                  Illinois
DISMISS and Opinion Filed September 13, 2019 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-19-01062-CR No. 05-19-01063-CR No. 05-19-01065-CR ORA LEE FULLER, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 265th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. F17-56984-R, F14-76634-R & F14-76612-R



### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Bridges, M olberg, and Partida-Kipness Opinion by Justice Bridges Ora Lee Fuller filed her notices of appeal on September 3, 2019 , along with the trial court’s
August 14, 2019 orders she wishes to appeal. Those orders deni ed the State’s motions to revoke
community supervision and continued Fuller on probation in each of the above cases.
Orders modifying conditions of community supervision are not ap pealable orders.

Basaldua v. State , 558 S.W.2d 2, 5 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977); see Davis v. State , 195 S.W.3d 708,
710 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (legislature has authorized appeal i n two instances: from order
granting probation and from ord er revoking probation; there is no legislative authority for
entertaining a direct appeal from an order modifying the condit ions of community supervision).
Without appealable orders, this Court has no jurisdiction to en tertain these appeals. Abbott v. State ,–2– 271 S.W.3d 694, 697 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); Nikrasch v. State , 698 S.W.2d 443, 450 (Tex.
App.—Dallas 1985, no pet.).
We dismiss the appeals fo r want of jurisdiction.

Do Not Publish T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b) 191062F.U05 /David L. Bridges/ DAVID L. BRIDGES JUSTICE–3– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT

ORA LEE FULLER, Appellant

No. 05-19-01062-CR V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 265th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F17-56984-R. Opinion delivered by Justice Bridges. Justices Molberg and Partida-Kipness participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Judgment entered September 13, 2019–4– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT

ORA LEE FULLER, Appellant

No. 05-19-01063-CR V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 265th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F14-76634-R. Opinion delivered by Justice Bridges. Justices Molberg and Partida-Kipness participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Judgment entered September 13, 2019–5– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT

ORA LEE FULLER, Appellant

No. 05-19-01065-CR V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 265th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F14-76612-R. Opinion delivered by Justice Bridges. Justices Molberg and Partida-Kipness participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Judgment entered September 13, 2019
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                 DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                      SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                                766,000
<SECURITIES>                                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      60,179,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                                0
<INVENTORY>                                        30,349,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   94,518,000
<PP&E>                                             16,045,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                     (5,922,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    141,114,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              78,683,000
<BONDS>                                            15,442,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                       0
<PREFERRED>                                                 0
<COMMON>                                              791,000
<OTHER-SE>                                         41,770,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      141,114,000
<SALES>                                           116,326,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  117,685,000
<CGS>                                              84,440,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      84,440,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   37,780,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  2,734,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (7,269,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                          137,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (7,132,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                             0
<CHANGES>                                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (7,132,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                             (0.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           (0.15)



</TABLE>
No. 43082.

#### Protest 900783-G of Strauss Bros. & Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Dallingeb, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of bridge table paperweights. The claim at 40 percent under paragraph 339 was sustained on the authority of *Woolworth*v. *United States*(26 C. C. P. A. 221, C. A. D. 20).
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 28, 2021

No. 04-20-00058-CV

IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF KENNETH CURTIS ANDREWS, DECEASED,

From the 81st Judicial District Court, Wilson County, Texas

Trial Court No. 18-04-0239-CVW

Honorable Sid L. Harle, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

Appellant’s motion for rehearing and/or motion for en banc reconsideration was due on 

June 24, 2021. On June 24, 2021, appellant filed a motion requesting a twenty-one day 

extension of time. The motion is GRANTED and appellant’s motion for rehearing and/or 

motion for en banc reconsideration is due no later than July 15, 2021.

It is so ORDERED June 28, 2021.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO:__________________________

 MICHAEL A. CRUZ, 

 CLERK OF COURT
H. Con. Res. 112 Agreed to May 2, 2008 

One Hundred Tenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and eight 

Concurrent Resolution 

Whereas approximately 63 percent of the Nation’s children under 

5 are in nonparental care during part or all of the day while 

their parents work; 

Whereas the early care and education industry employs more than 

2,300,000 workers; 

Whereas the average salary of early care and education workers 

is $18,180 per year, and only 1⁄3 have health insurance and 

even fewer have a pension plan; 

Whereas the quality of early care and education programs is directly 

linked to the quality of early childhood educators; 

Whereas the turnover rate of early childhood program staff is 

roughly 30 percent per year, and low wages and lack of benefits, 

among other factors, make it difficult to retain high quality 

educators who have the consistent, caring relationships with 

young children that are important to children’s development; 

Whereas the compensation of early childhood program staff should 

be commensurate with the importance of the job of helping the 

young children of the Nation develop their social, emotional, 

physical, and cognitive skills, and to help them be ready for 

school; 

Whereas providing adequate compensation to early childhood program staff should be a priority, and resources may be allocated 

to improve the compensation of early childhood educators to 

ensure that quality care and education are accessible for all 

families; 

Whereas additional training and education for the early care and 

education workforce is critical to ensuring high-quality early 

learning environments; 

Whereas child care workers should receive compensation commensurate with such training and experience; and 

Whereas the Center for the Child Care Workforce, a project of 

the American Federation of Teachers Educational Foundation, 

with support by the National Association for the Education of 

Young Children and other early childhood organizations, recognizes May 1 as National Child Care Worthy Wage Day: Now, 

therefore, be it 

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That the Congress supports the goals and ideas of National 

Child Care Worthy Wage Day, and urges public officials and the 

general public to honor early childhood care and education staff 
H. Con. Res. 112—2 

and programs in their communities and to work together to resolve 

the early childhood care and education staff compensation crisis. 

Attest: 

Clerk of the House of Representatives. 

Attest: 

Secretary of the Senate.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND INCOME STATEMENT OF UGI UTILITIES, INC.
AS OF AND FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN UGI UTILITIES'
QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000100548
<NAME> UGI UTILITIES, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           4,218
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   68,618
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,649
<INVENTORY>                                     21,007
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                97,059
<PP&E>                                         834,402
<DEPRECIATION>                                 275,229
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 735,334
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          187,419
<BONDS>                                        172,909
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           20,000
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        60,259
<OTHER-SE>                                      68,559
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   735,334
<SALES>                                        121,156
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               121,156
<CGS>                                           57,433
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   57,433
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   873
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,746
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 29,076
<INCOME-TAX>                                    11,258
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             17,818
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    17,818
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0<F1>
<FN>
<F1>THERE ARE NO PUBLICLY HELD SHARES OUTSTANDING.
</FN>


</TABLE>
ex_357829.htm


Exhibit 4.28


 


FIRST AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


 


 


This First Amendment to Employment Agreement (this “Amendment”) is entered into on January 11, 2022 (the “Effective Date”) by and between BeyondSpring Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Company”) and Elizabeth Czerepak (“Employee”) (collectively, the “Parties”).


 


WHEREAS, Employee and the Company entered into an employment agreement on September 11, 2020, in which Employee agreed to serve as an employee of the Company, and


 


WHEREAS, Employee and the Company desire to amend the Employment Agreement to revise certain terms.


 


NOW, intending to be legally bound, the Parties agree as follows:


 


1.           Section 2(b). Section 2(b) is hereby amended and restated in its entirely as follows:


 


(b) Should Employee choose to resign voluntarily from the Company at any point in time, Employee agrees to give the Company a minimum of three (3) months’ written notice prior to Employee’s resignation date.


 


2.           Continuation of Employment Agreement. Except as otherwise expressly provided herein, all of the terms and provisions of the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.


 


3.           Complete Agreement. This Amendment contains the entire agreement between the Parties hereto with respect to the matters contained herein and supersedes and replaces any prior agreements between the Parties with respect to the matters set forth here.


 


4.           Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts and any such counterparts may be transmitted by electronic transmission, and each of such counterparts, whether an original or an electronic or ".pdf" of an original, shall be deemed to be an original and all of such counterparts together shall constitute a single instrument.


 


 


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement as of the date first above written.


 


 


 


/s/ Elizabeth Czerepak                 


Elizabeth Czerepak


 


 


/s/ Lan Huang                              


Dr. Lan Huang, CEO


BeyondSpring Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Case No. 6,902.

#### In re HUNTER.

[3 McLean, 297.] 1

Circuit Court, D. Ohio.

Dec. Term, 1843.

Bankruptcy — Application—Demand for Jury Trial.

A demand for a trial by jury, where an application for the benefit of the bankrupt law [of 1841 (5 Stat. 440)], is dismissed, must be made at the term in which the decision is made.

[In the matter of Thomas Hunter, a bankrupt]

1

 [Reported by Hon. John McIjciui, Circuit J ustice.]

*951OPINION OF THE COURT. This was an application for the benefit of the bankrupt law, to the district court. The application was dismissed. Twenty-nine days after this dismissal, the applicant demanded a jury. On the above demand the cause was heal’d and continued under advisement; and at the next term the question was certified by the district court to this court, “whether a trial by jury can be allowed to the applicant aforesaid on his demand by attorney, twenty-nine days after the refusal and record thereof, of his discharge as aforesaid.” In the fourth section of the bankrupt law, it is provided, that “if, upon such hearing, a discharge shall not be decreed to him, the bankrupt may demand a trial by jury upon a proper issue to be directed by the court; or he may appeal from that decision, at any time within ten days* thereafter, to the circuit court,” &c. After the expiration of ten days, an appeal is not allowed; and it would seem to be reasonable that a demand for a trial by jury should be made, at the term in .which the decision is made against the application. An appeal is made by entering in the district court, or with the clerk thereof, upon record, the prayer for an appeal. Now when the petition is dismissed there is a final determination of the cause, and after the adjournment of the court, no means are provided by which the cause can be reinstated and opened for a jury trial. As well might it be argued that an appeal could be taken after the lapse of the ten days allowed, as that a jury trial could be demanded after' the adjournment of the court. It is true, there is no express limitation to this application, as there is to an appeal. But there is a necessary limitation to the term at which the decision of the court was entered. This decision may be certified to the district court.
No. 39048.

#### Protests 832900-G, etc., of Omaha Packing Co. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *Locatelli*v. *United States*(T. D. 49389) the protests were sustained.
# C_2017382EN.01001001.xml

| 13.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 12 September 2017 — Alexios Anagnostakis v European Commission

(Case C-589/15 P) (1)

1

((Appeal - Institutional law - Citizens’ initiative inviting the European Commission to submit a legislative proposal relating to the writing off of public debt for Member States in a state of necessity - Application for registration - Refusal by the Commission - Manifest lack of powers of the Commission - Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 - Article 4(2)(b) - Obligation to state reasons - Article 122 TFEU - Article 136 TFEU - Infringement))

(2017/C 382/10)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Alexios Anagnostakis (represented by: A. Anagnostakis, dikigoros, and F. Moyse, avocat)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: M. Konstantinidis and H. Krämer, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Mr Alexios Anagnostakis to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Alexios Anagnostakis to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 7, 11.1.2016.

1

---
Additional Other Supporting

Documents (Updated September 30, 2016)

Final PSD Permit Decision for the MCU Facility
----

**Exhibit      32.1**

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO **

**18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350, **

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO **

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

|   | · | the                Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended                September 30, 2005, (the “Report”), which this certification accompanies,                fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of                the                Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

| /s/                Bruce W. Marlow                   |   |
|------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Bruce                W. Marlow                       |   |
| President                and Chief Executive Officer |   |

| /s/                Lawrence P. Bascom                         |   |
|---------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Lawrence                P. Bascom                             |   |
| Sr.                Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |   |

----