alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

WALTER E. RYAN, JR.

, §

§

Plaintiff Below, § No. 230, 2017

Appellant, §

§ Court Below: Court of Chancery

v. § of the State of Delaware

§

ALAN S. ARMSTRONG, JOSEPH R. § C.A. No. 12717

- VCG

CLEVELAND, KATHLEEN B. §

COOPER, JOHN A. HAGG, JUANITA §

H. HINSHAW, RALPH IZZO, FRANK §

T. MACINNIS, ERIC W. §

MANDELBLATT, KEITH A. §

MEISTER, STEVEN W. NANCE, §

MURRAY D. SMITH, JANICE D. §

STONEY, and LAURA A. SUGG, §

§

Defendant s Below, §

App ellee s

. §

§

and §

§

THE WILLIAMS COMPANIES, INC., §

§

Nominal Defendant Below, §

Appellee. §

Submitted: December 6, 2017

Decided: December 18 , 2017

Before STRINE , Chief Justice; VALIHURA

, VAUGHN

, SEITZ

, and

TRAYNOR

, Justices, constituting the Court en Banc

.2 O R D E R

This 18 th day of December 2017, we affirm the judgment of the Court of

Chancery on the basis of its opinion dated May 15, 2017

. 1 We note two issues. First,

the appellant argues that the Court of Chancery somehow failed to consider the

context

- specific nature of his fiduciary duty claims, i.e., an argument under Unocal

,

in deciding that the appellant had not pled particularized facts supporting the

exis tence of a non

- exculpated claim for breach of fiduciary duty. We do not agree

with that assertion and believe that the Court of Chancery found that the pled facts

did not support a non

- exculpat ed claim for breach of the de fendants’ duties under

Unocal

.

Second, the appellees argued in the alternative that the appellant’s claims were

subject to dismissal under Court of Chan cery Rule 15(aaa) and Rule 41(a). We

agree. Our Court of Chancery is busy, and the scarce resources of litigants (which

affect the be st interests of American investors) should no t be wasted. The procedural

choice made by the appellant here was not proper, and the Court of Chancery could

have dismissed on that basis alone. Precisely because the Court of Chancery’s

ability to handle cas es promptly is so important, we note that we will support it if it

exercises its discretion to dismiss without burdensome consideration of the merits

1 Ryan v. Armstrong , C.A. No. 1 2717

- VCG, 2017 WL 2062902 (Del. Ch. May 15, 2017).3

when, as here, a plaintiff violates procedural rules designed to ensure that claims

will be brought in one proceeding and at the appropriate time.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Court of

Chancery is hereby AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr.

Chief Justice
Exhibit (h)(15)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Financial Services Firm (“you” or “Intermediary”),

 

As principal underwriter of the DWS Funds, we (or a predecessor firm) or our affiliate have entered into a selling group or other agreement or agreements (the "Agreement") with you to permit you, as applicable, to sell, service, or facilitate trading in shares of the DWS Funds (collectively, the "Shares").  

 

This amendment to the Agreement is entered into as of the date indicated in the signature block below, with an effective date of October 16, 2007, or such earlier date as of which you begin providing the Shareholder information described below, and includes the following provisions: 

 

**1. Agreement to Provide Information.**Intermediary agrees to provide the Fund, upon written request, the taxpayer identification number (“TIN”), the Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (“ITIN”), or other government-issued identifier (“GII”), if known, of any or all Shareholder(s) of the account and the amount, date, name or other identifier of any investment professional(s) associated with the Shareholder(s) or account (if known), and transaction type (purchase, redemption, transfer, or exchange) of every purchase, redemption, transfer, or exchange of Shares held through each account maintained by the Intermediary during the period covered by the request.

 

**2. Period Covered by Request.**Requests must set forth a specific period, not to exceed 90 days from the date of the request, for which transaction information is sought. The Fund may request transaction information older than 90 days from the date of the request as it deems necessary to investigate compliance with policies established by the Fund for the purpose of eliminating or reducing any dilution of the value of the outstanding shares issued by the Fund.

 

**3. Form and Timing of Response.**

 

(a)  Intermediary agrees to provide, promptly upon request of the Fund or its designee, the requested information specified in paragraph 1 above. If requested by the Fund or its designee, Intermediary agrees to use best efforts to determine promptly whether any specific person about whom it has received the identification and transaction information specified in paragraph 1 is itself a financial intermediary (“indirect intermediary”) and, upon further request of the Fund or its designee, promptly either (i) provide 

 

----
#### CITY OF ORLANDO, Florida, etc., Petitioner, v. Johnnie E. HARRIS, and the Division of Labor and Employee Opportunities of the Department of Commerce, Respondents.

No. 42750.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Nov. 21, 1972.

Certiorari denied.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 224 (Thursday, November 20, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61998-61999]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-30554]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration


Evaluation of State Coastal Management Programs and National 
Estuarine Research Reserves

AGENCY: Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Ocean 
Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), DOC.


[[Page 61999]]


ACTION: Notice of availability of evaluation final findings.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the availability of the final 
evaluation findings for the Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, North 
Carolina, Washington, and American Samoa Coastal Management Programs, 
and the Apalachicola (Florida), and Rookery Bay (Florida) National 
Estuarine Research Reserves (NERRs). Sections 312 and 315 of the 
Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA), as amended, require a 
continuing review of the performance of coastal states with respect to 
approved coastal management programs and the operation and management 
of NERRs.

    The States of Alabama, Louisiana, North Carolina, and Washington, 
and the Territory of American Samoa were found to be implementing and 
enforcing their Federally approved coastal management programs, 
addressing the national coastal management objectives identified in 
CZMA Section 303(2)(A)-(K), and adhering to the programmatic terms of 
their financial assistance awards. The State of Mississippi was found 
to be not fully adhering to its approved coastal zone program and is 
not implementing and enforcing the program in a satisfactory manner.
    Apalachicola and Rookery Bay NERRs were found to be adhering to 
programmatic requirements of the NERR System. Copies of these final 
evaluation findings may be obtained upon written request from: Vickie 
Allin, Chief, Policy Coordination Division, Office of Ocean and Coastal 
Resource Management, NOS/NOAA, 1305 East-West Highway, 10th Floor, 
Silver Spring, Maryland 20910, (301) 713-3087x126.

(Federal Domestic Assistance Catalog 11.419, Coastal Zone Management 
Program Administration)

    Dated: November 14, 1997.
Nancy Foster,
Assistant Administrator.
[FR Doc. 97-30554 Filed 11-19-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-08-M
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Lowell Merritt, Appellant

No. 06

- 15

- 00047

- CV v.

James Andrews, Appellee Appeal from the 170th District Court of McLennan County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No.

2015

- 2602

- 4 ). Opinion delivered by

Jus tice Burgess, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice Moseley participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find that the appeal should be dismissed

for want of jurisdiction . Therefore, we dismiss the appeal.

We further order that the appellant, Lowell Merritt, pay all costs of this appeal.

RENDERED SEPTEMBER 24, 2015

BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 136 (Wednesday, July 16, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 41542]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-16685]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

 DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Basic Energy Sciences Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Department of Energy, Office of Science.

ACTION: Notice of open meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice announces an open meeting of the Basic Energy 
Sciences Advisory Committee (BESAC). The Federal Advisory Committee Act 
(Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of these 
meetings be announced in the Federal Register.

DATES: Tuesday, July 29, 2014, Wednesday, July 30, 2014, 8:30 a.m.-5:00 
p.m., 9:00 a.m.-12:00 noon.

ADDRESSES: Bethesda North Hotel and Conference Center, 5701 Marinelli 
Road, Bethesda, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Katie Perine, Office of Basic Energy 
Sciences; U.S. Department of Energy; SC-22/Germantown Building, 1000 
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585; Telephone: (301) 903-
6529

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Purpose of the Meeting: The purpose of this meeting is to provide 
advice and guidance with respect to the basic energy sciences research 
program.
    Tentative Agenda: Agenda will include discussions of the following:
     News from Office of Science/DOE
     News from the Office of Basic Energy Sciences
     Big Data Center for Applied Mathematics for Energy 
Research
     Big Ideas Summit and DOE Tech Team Summary
     JCESR Upgrade
     COY Report for the Chemical Sciences, Geosciences and 
Biosciences Division
     Evolution of the Energy Landscape
     Summary of the Future of Electron Scattering and 
Diffraction Workshop
     Grand Challenge Update and Initial Discussion of BESAC 
Charge
    Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public. If you 
would like to file a written statement with the Committee, you may do 
so either before or after the meeting. If you would like to make oral 
statements regarding any of the items on the agenda, you should contact 
Katie Perine at (301) 903-6594 (fax) or via email 
Katie.perine@science.doe.gov.
    Reasonable provision will be made to include the scheduled oral 
statements on the agenda. The Chairperson of the Committee will conduct 
the meeting to facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Public 
comment will follow the 10-minute rule.
    Minutes: The minutes of this meeting will be available after 45 
days by contacting Ms. Katie Perine at the address or email above.

    Issued at Washington, DC, on July 10, 2014.
LaTanya R. Butler,
 Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2014-16685 Filed 7-15-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
```
UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, DC  20549

 

 

FORM 10-Q

 

 

(Mark One)

[ X ] 		**QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d)
			OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934**
For the quarterly period ended:  January 31, 2002**OR**
[    ] 		**TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d)
			OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934**
For the transition period from _________ to ___________

Commission file number     0-12619
                                                     Collins Industries, Inc.                                                              .
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

               Missouri               		                                         43-0985160                                .
(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation)				           (I.R.S. Employer Identification Number)

             15 Compound Drive                      Hutchinson, Kansas             67502-4349                   .
                    (Address of principal executive offices)						   (Zip Code)
Registrant's telephone number including area code	                            620-663-5551                                          .
 

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.

 

 

					     Yes  X .	No .
 

 

APPLICABLE ONLY TO CORPORATE ISSUERS:

Indicate the number of shares outstanding of each of the issuer's classes of common stock, as of the latest practicable date.

 

 

 

Common Stock, $.10 par value						      7,017,294            .
		Class						         Outstanding at March 14, 2002**COLLINS INDUSTRIES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

FORM 10-Q

January 31, 2002

INDEX**
Table 4. Electric Power Industry Generating Capability 

by Primary Energy Source, 1990, 1994, and 1999 

(Megawatts) 

Plant Type 1990 1994 1999 

Annual

Growth

Rate 

1990-

1999 

(Percent) 

Percentage 

Share

1990 

Percentage 

Share

1994 

Percentage 

Share

1999 

Wyoming 

 Total Utility 5,809 5,874 6,011 0.4 98.3 98.5 98.4 

 Coal 5,525 5,567 5,709 0.4 93.5 93.3 93.4 

 Petroleum 15 15 0 -100.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 

 Hydroelectric 269 292 298 1.1 4.6 4.9 4.9 

 Other 0 0 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 

 Total Nonutility 100 92 99 -0.1 1.7 1.5 1.6 

 Coal W W 27 W W W 0.4 

 Petroleum W W 1 W W W 0.0 

 Gas W W 51 W W W 0.8 

 Petroleum/Gas Combined W W 2 W W W 0.0 

 Hydroelectric W W 1 W W W 0.0 

 Other W W 16 W W W 0.3 

 Total Industry 5,909 5,966 6,110 0.4 100.0 100.0 100.0 

 Coal W W 5,736 W W W 93.9 

 Petroleum W W 1 W W W 0.0 

 Gas W W 51 W W W 0.8 

 Petroleum/Gas Combined W W 2 W W W 0.0 

 Hydroelectric W W 299 W W W 4.9 

 Other W W 21 W W W 0.3
HHF Oregon Date: October 1, 2018

A-1

SCHEDULE A

BASIC INFORMATION

Eligible Entity Information:

Name of the Eligible Entity: Oregon Affordable Housing Assistance 

Corporation

Corporate or other organizational form: Nonprofit corporation 

Jurisdiction of organization: Oregon

Notice Information:

HFA Information:

Name of HFA: Oregon Housing and Community Services

Organizational form: A department of the State of Oregon under 

the laws of the State of Oregon

Date of Application: June 1, 2010

Date of Action Plan: September 1, 2010 

Notice Information:

Program Participation Cap: $314,752,280.00 

Portion of Program Participation Cap

Representing Original HHF Funds: $88,000,000.00

Portion of Program Participation Cap

Representing Unemployment HHF Funds: $49,294,215.00

Rounds 1-4 Funding Allocation: $220,042,786.00

Round 5 Funding Allocation: $94,709,494.00

Program Funds: $257,071,498.36

Permitted Expenses: $57,680,781.64

Closing Date: August 3, 2010
HHF Oregon Date: October 1, 2018

A-2

First Amendment Date: September 23, 2010

Second Amendment Date: September 29, 2010

Third Amendment Date: December 16, 2010

Fourth Amendment Date: March 31, 2011

Fifth Amendment Date: May 25, 2011

Sixth Amendment Date: September 28, 2011

Seventh Amendment Date: December 8, 2011

Eighth Amendment Date: March 29, 2012

Ninth Amendment Date: July 17, 2012

Tenth Amendment Date: February 6, 2013

Eleventh Amendment Date: April 25, 2013

Twelfth Amendment Date: June 6, 2013

Thirteenth Amendment Date: August 28, 2013

Fourteenth Amendment Date: February 27, 2014

Fifteenth Amendment Date: June 11, 2014

Sixteenth Amendment Date: November 24, 2015

Seventeenth Amendment Date: April 1, 2016

Eighteenth Amendment Date: June 28, 2016

Eligible Entity Depository Account Information: See account information set forth in the

Depository Account Control Agreement 

between Treasury and Eligible Entity 

regarding the HHF Program.
Exhibit 99.2



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 Quarterly Report of Artesyn
Technologies, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 28, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Richard J. Thompson, Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



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



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



|                          
|--------------------------
|/s/    RICHARD J. THOMPSON
|Richard J. Thompson       
|Chief Financial Officer   
|May 9, 2003
Order filed March 13 , 20 1 2

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 11

- 0 1 0 71

- CV

____________ LINDA LEE BRUEGGEBORS , Appellant

V.

RICHARD PAUL BRUEGGEBORS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 310th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 19 83

- 28363



### O R D E R
This is an appeal from a judgment signed October 27, 2011 . Appellant filed h er notice of appeal on December 8, 2011 . Appellant also filed a n affidavit of inability to pay
costs in this court on January 13, 2012. On February 14, 2012, in accordance with Tex. R. App. P. 20.1(d)(2), the trial court clerk and the court reporter were notified that appellant filed an affidavit of indigence in this court and a contest was due in this court on or before February 29, 2012. As of this date, no contest has been filed in this court. A ppellant is
therefore deemed indigent for purposes of appeal and the record will be provided without2

prepayment of costs. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 20.1(f ). Accordingly, we issue the following
order.

The Harris County District Clerk is ordered to file a complete clerk ' s record in this appeal on or before April 12, 2012 . The court reporter, Benjamin Alva , is ordered to file a complete reporter ' s record in this appeal on or before A pril 12, 2012 . If no record was taken during the underlying proceedings, the court reporter shall so advise this court within 10 days from the date hereof. Appellant ' s brief will be due 30 days after the complete
record has been filed. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.6(a).

PER CURIAM
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-1447

HELEN TESFAYE, Petitioner,

versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A97-925-825) Submitted: November 3, 2006 Decided: December 1, 2006 Before WILKINSON and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Allan Ebert, LAW OFFICES OF ALLAN EBERT, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Larry D. Adams, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Helen Tesfaye, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) adopting and affirming the immigration judge’s order denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture and denying her motion to reopen. To obtain reversal of a determination denying eligibility for relief, an alien “must show that the evidence he presented was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.” INS v. Elias-Zacarias , 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 (1992). We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude that Tesfaye fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Accordingly, we cannot grant the relief that she seeks. Additionally, we uphold the immigration judge’s denial of Tesfaye’s request for withholding of removal. “Because the burden of proof for withholding of removal is higher than for asylum--even though the facts that must be proved are the same--an applicant who is ineligible for asylum is necessarily ineligible for withholding of removal under [8 U.S.C.] § 1231(b)(3).” Camara v. Ashcroft , 378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004). Because Tesfaye fails to show that she is eligible for asylum, she cannot meet the higher standard for withholding of removal.- 3 - We also find that Tesfaye fails to meet the standard for relief under the Convention Against Torture. To obtain such relief, an applicant must establish that “it is more likely than not that he or he would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2004). We find that Tesfaye fails to make the requisite showing. Finally, we have reviewed the record and the Board’s order and find that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying Tesfaye’s motion to reopen. See8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2006); Jean v. Gonzales , 435 F.3d 475, 481 (4th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. 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
#### John Lewis GRIFFITH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. N-341.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Oct. 13, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 32.3



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 Quarterly Report of Dominos, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 13, 2004, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David A. Brandon, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that based on
my knowledge:



| | 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
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



/s/ David A. BrandonDavid A. BrandonChief Executive Officer




Dated: July 27, 2004



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
Dominos, Inc. and will be retained by Dominos, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.