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

 

 

_________________________________________ 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

April 10, 2008 

135820 

IN THE MATTER OF 

HONORABLE MARY BROUILLETTE BARGLIND 

JUDGE, 41ST CIRCUIT COURT 

BEFORE THE JUDICIAL TENURE COMMISSION 

Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

On order of the Court, the request by the Judicial Tenure Commission for 

appointment of a master is considered and Honorable Patricia L. Micklow is appointed 

Master to hear Formal Complaint No.83. 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

April 10, 2008 

 Clerk
| SCHEDULE .—Free Tnhebitents: in a Zz, Sots
of iz 22> 2. enumerated oy me, on the | eee day of of Ag
Post Office Las Ladle: oe

, . - ~- ale a fe Lem OFM hee ee * as Mey fore ier a © ebiwte wits
od) " : ¢ . oSeen * ‘ oe, ay? . - W opted ’ > +, 7
’ : +. « . * v is wt, ° ‘ : Se ~<a,
+ ' ey - 1 * t : 3 re
; ° ay take ee Sis . *' oo} as VY
® ‘egetes he . sae Lg =i TM °
~ > r= hee? ce biter 2 =. ‘
ioe r : sore . 2s “
2 of . s- ‘ ? B J e
= *. * ue |
. - é .
; Es | 2 the Co ou of | -
-
“ r
ce
”
.
* .
° ’
.
. *
4 . i .
i .

’ ‘ ,+ oC
. oe,
|
i

f

| 7

Vatu or Estate Ownen. |"
“ e om . “J = , pe Ry ‘
| ve era ee |

—
oS

st :

Ea Whether deaf and
& § | dumb, blind, insane,
os

i ]

23

Be

a

cere bee < Place ‘of Birth, hs
T-Walue of Naming the State, Territory,

+- Personal ©  _. - or Coun
-- Estate. iM g, 5 : HY:

-houses—

4
numbered in the

: 7 oS E
The name of every person whose usual : 3| Profession, Occupation, or Trade of | =. |
place of abode on the first day of J une, & esch person, male and female, over j Value of |
1860, was in this family. | "jp r~| IS years of age. Real Estate. |

idiotic, pauper, or]
convict. ee =

in the order of

order of visitation.
Visitation:

emilies numbered
within the year.

Attended School

Dwellin

2 es | a|s| 6 | 7 liege at

—  ___ 06.6 oOnreoenmnm——_— _—“'_ "ll OO€~_wOCL
S| mmm

14

Oe | nsf et ee Ts eae
—_—— ee Ooo eee

- Phd ye? 4072 .4 Y al Zim OH DP. | | ie | | ee
Ca Historic census records are maintained and released by
7 the National Archives and Records Administration,

not the U.S. Census Bureau.

co mp &@ & P&B DW

25
©

BILL

— Visit http://www.archives.gov for more information about publicly
pi a available records like the one shown here.

ax
ve.

i ee eo, feo Oe ae | eee el ieee

nS |

— a ee —? ~~ b es -
— ts 6 as “yt =
or eI - me, . -- yx ~ -

nn

o> lt ny ee we a
. Fes

eS | ——

aL fp rp NBS BO I EL

*
fo

\

\

mM
4
od

ee be a
eee —_—_—_—_— Ee SSeS o_O | — ee

SE | EA fen : . SS eS
’ - en

le ee ee) ee eS ee ee ee See ee lee oe 8 eM eee ee ee

1° ots.

‘ edt, eer nS |cgtee “2 | No. white males, VW ne-cotored males, | "No. foreign born, >No, ‘blind. ioe ea “No. idiotic, | aN ie
' Be ae Seg ce : “et ? Fae ft /M No. convicts, —__

Mae Re ee ea ol Ne. white females, No. colored females, — _ No. deaf and dumb, .

estes
Exhibit 4.10

 


 


AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE AMENDED AND RESTATED VIACOMCBS
BONUS DEFERRAL PLAN FOR DESIGNATED SENIOR EXECUTIVES- 


PART A (2021 RESTATEMENT) &


PART B (2021 RESTATEMENT)


 


 


Effective as of February 16, 2022, the ViacomCBS Bonus
Deferral Plan for Designated Senior Executives (each of Part A and Part B) is amended such that, for all periods on or after February
16, 2022, all references to “ViacomCBS” or “ViacomCBS Inc.” shall be deemed to refer to “Paramount Global”,
including such that: all references to the “ViacomCBS Administrative Committee” or “ViacomCBS Investments Committee”
shall be deemed to refer to “Paramount Global Administrative Committee” and “Paramount Global Investments Committee”,
respectively; all references to “ViacomCBS 401(k) Plan” shall be deemed to refer to “Paramount Global 401(k) Plan”;
and reference to “ViacomCBS Inc.” in the definition of “Company” shall be deemed to refer to “Paramount
Global”.


 


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, pursuant to a resolution of the
Paramount Global Administrative Committee, the undersigned hereby executes this amendment this 7th day of October, 2022.


 


 


 


	 	 
	 	By:	 	
    /s/ Mark Beatty

	 	 	 	Name: Mark Beatty
	 	 	 	
    Its: Member, Paramount Global


    Administrative Committee
#### LARYBAR, INC., et al., Appellants, v. CITY OF MIAMI BEACH et al., Appellees. M. R. L. CORPORATION, Appellant, v. CITY OF MIAMI BEACH et al., Appellees.

Nos. 67-495, 67-497, 67-496, 67-500.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

March 12, 1968.

*130Leonard D. Baskin, Miami, for appellants.

Thomas C. Britton, County Atty., Joseph A. Wanick, City Atty., and Ira M. Elegant, Asst. City Atty., for appellees.

Before CHARLES CARROLL, C. J., and BARKDULL and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

These appeals from companion cases have been consolidated for all appellate purposes.

On February 14, 1967, the lower court, pursuant to Fla.Stat. § 45.19(1) (1965), F.S.A., entered orders of dismissal for failure to prosecute in both cases. These orders were recorded on February 16, 1967. See Fla.Stat. § 28.29(1) (1965), F.S.A.

On March 14, 1967, Larybar and M. R. L. filed petitions, respectively, for reinstatement pursuant to Fla.Stat. § 45.19(1) (1965), F.S.A. which provides that such petitions may be filed “by any party in interest within one (1) month after such order of dismissal.” The lower court denied the petitions for reinstatement upon the sole ground that they had not been filed within the required month, and entered orders accordingly. The instant appeals are taken from these orders.

The sole question before us is whether the petitions for reinstatement were timely filed. We hold that they were.

Since orders of dismissal must be recorded under Fla.Stat. § 28.29 (1) (1965), F.S.A., the computation of the designated one month period starts to run from the date of recording. See also Rule 1.3, “Rendition,” Florida Appellate Rules, 32 F.S.A.; Smith v. Smith, Fla.App.1967, 194 So.2d 917. Rule 1.090, R.C.P., 30 F.S.A. provides that “In computing any period of time prescribed or allowed * * * by an applicable statute, the day of the act, event or default from which the designated period of time begins to run shall not be included.”

Therefore, it would appear that Larybar and M. R. L. had one calendar month from February 16, 1967 in which to file their petitions for reinstatement. A petition filed on March 14, 1967 would have been timely under Fla.Stat. § 45.19, F.S.A.

Reversed and remanded.

It 'is so ordered.
# C_2022418EN.01002701.xml

| 31.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 418/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 418/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2022 — KTM Fahrrad v EUIPO — KTM (R2R)

(Case T-353/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark R2R - Declaration of revocation - Genuine use of the trade mark - Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Proof of genuine use - Proper reason for non-use)

(2022/C 418/35)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: KTM Fahrrad GmbH (Mattighofen, Austria) (represented by: V. Hoene, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Schäfer and D. Hanf, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: KTM AG (Mattighofen) (represented by: R. Erfurt, lawyer)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 20 April 2021 (Case R 261/2020-5).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders KTM Fahrrad GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders KTM Fahrrad GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 320, 9.8.2021.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF FIRST AMERICAN CLOCK CO. AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                             528
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   528
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     865
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               77
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           908
<OTHER-SE>                                       (120)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       865
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    74
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (74)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (74)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (74)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 As Adopted Pursuant to**

**Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

** **

**Certification**

** **

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, the undersigned officer of Logan County BancShares, Inc. (the “Company”)hereby certifies that the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the yearended December 31, 2004 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

 

Dated:  March 29, 2005

 
|   | /s/ Mark Mareske        |
|--------|-------------------------|
|   | Mark Mareske            |
|   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1154 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1154

  To provide that certain requirements of the Patient Protection and 
    Affordable Care Act do not apply if the American Health Benefit 
            Exchanges are not operating on October 1, 2013.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 12, 2013

 Mr. Roberts (for himself, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Barrasso, and Mr. Cochran) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
                          Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To provide that certain requirements of the Patient Protection and 
    Affordable Care Act do not apply if the American Health Benefit 
            Exchanges are not operating on October 1, 2013.

    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 ``Exchange Sunset Act of 2013''.

SEC. 2. NONAPPLICATION OF THE PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE 
              ACT.

    (a) Termination of Exchange Requirement.--Section 1312 of the 
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (42 U.S.C. 18031) is amended 
by adding at the end the following:
    ``(i) Failure To Offer Coverage.--If one or more Exchanges fails to 
accept applications for enrollment in qualified health plans beginning 
on October 1, 2013, the requirements of this section shall cease to 
apply, and any other provisions of this Act (or an amendment made by 
this Act) relating to Exchanges shall not be applicable.''.
    (b) Requirement of Coverage.--Section 5000A of the Internal Revenue 
Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(h) Termination.--The provisions of this section shall terminate 
on October 1, 2013 if the Secretary of the Treasury determines that one 
or more Exchanges fails to accept applications for enrollment in 
qualified health plans on such date.''.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2021462EN.01003101.xml

| 15.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 462/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 462/31

---

Appeal brought on 21 September 2021 by Ryanair DAC, Laudamotion GmbH against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 12 July 2021 in Case T-866/19, Ryanair and Laudamotion v Commission

(Case C-581/21 P)

(2021/C 462/36)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Ryanair DAC, Laudamotion GmbH (represented by: E. Vahida, avocat, S. Rating, abogado, and I.-G. Metaxas-Maranghidis, dikigoros)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

| — | set aside the order under appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the order under appeal;

| — | refer the case back to the General Court for reconsideration; |
| --- | --- |

—

refer the case back to the General Court for reconsideration;

| — | reserve the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

reserve the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellants advance two grounds of appeal.

The General Court infringed EU law and distorted the facts (1) in considering that the priority of the Slot Regulation (1) is relevant to determining whether the Traffic Distribution Rules (2) entail implementing measures, and (2) by disregarding the normal course of events in determining the artificial nature of a request by the appellants for an implementing measure from the slot coordinator.

In addition, the appellants submit that the General Court has failed to state reasons to support its findings in the order under appeal.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 95/93 of 18 January 1993 on common rules for the allocation of slots at Community airports (OJ 1993 L 14, p. 1).

(2)  Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/1585 of 24 September 2019 on the establishment of traffic distribution rules pursuant to Article 19 of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council for the airports Amsterdam Schiphol and Amsterdam Lelystad (notified under document C(2019) 6816) (OJ 2019 L 246, p. 24).

---
#### MIDWEST MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Claude C. BRASECKER et al., Appellees.

No. 73-33.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Sept. 25, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
0a inet to adn. Sogo antes 112, 15,10, 1,1, 98829 aze to bo arn iat al
merely Gran an afirmative mark, as /. r >

in the County of Alaa State

pe 5: ae Run ember 726 an 7 ae

Sofeporn-1 “inhabitants is in [=z i
of Bzedoezese!, entimeratéd by me on'the._ut7“day of La

yl

wetsfode dso
roa
& | smeariacea

Ze
a

Z|

Boat Lreree®
UN aasclrtedeas la S bend eres

Historic census records are maintained and released by the National Archives and Records Administration, not the U.S. Census Bureau.

Visit http://www.archives.gov for more information about publicly available records like the one shown here.

Oe oe I -|s¢ ZAZA es ps Z|

pio stamatees sh sini AA nin on ry

piers
#### Jackie Lamar HYSMITH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. P-343.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Dec. 9, 1971.

Jackie Lamar Hysmith, in pro. per.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Joseph DeMember, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order denying appellant’s post-conviction motion to set aside a judgment of conviction and imposition of sentence on a charge of aiding and abetting as a principal in the first degree the commission of a felony, to wit: uttering a forged instrument.

The briefs and record on appeal herein having been fully considered, and it ap*287pearing therefrom that appellant has failed to demonstrate that the order appealed is erroneous, the said order is therefore affirmed.

SPECTOR, C. J., and WIGGINTON and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.
#### Robert Lee BRYANT, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 66-559.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Jan. *24,*1967.

Robert Lee Bryant, in pro. per.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Barry N. Semet, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before HENDRY, C. J., and PEARSON and SWANN, JJ.

PEARSON, Judge.

Robert Lee Bryant, the appellant, appeals an order denying his motion for relief pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule I, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix. He alleged that he was indigent and that he neither waived counsel nor was afforded the opportunity to have counsel when his probation was revoked and when he was sentenced to the State prison.

 The record reveals that appellant was charged, pleaded guilty, and was adjudged guilty of the crime of robbery. The court suspended imposition of sentence and placed the appellant on probation for a term of three years. At all stages of the proceedings he was represented by counsel of his own choice. The order placing defendant on probation was dated August 12, 1963. Subsequently, appellant was charged with the violation of his probation, and probation was revoked on October 20, 1965. He was then sentenced to a term of five years. On May 5, 1966, appellant filed his petition for relief which was denied on the basis that the motion was insufficient in substance to support the relief prayed. This appeal followed.

The State has admitted that the record does not reveal that appellant had counsel or waived counsel at the time of sentencing. See Evans v. State, Fla.App.1964, 163 So.2d 520, 522. The imposition of sentence is a critical stage in the trial, and the defendant is entitled to assistance of counsel at that time. Phillips v. State, Fla.App.1964, 165 So.2d 246. We therefore reverse the order denying relief and remand the cause for an evidentiary hearing upon the appellant’s allegation that he was not afforded the opportunity to be represented by counsel at the *22time of sentencing. See Langlois v. State, Fla.App.1966, 191 So.2d 284.

Appellant’s allegation that he was denied a constitutional right when he was not represented or afforded the opportunity of representation by counsel on the revocation of his probation is not a ground for relief. Thomas v. State, Fla.App.1964, 163 So.2d 328; Phillips v. State, Fla.App.1964, 165 So.2d 246.

Reversed and remanded for evidentiary hearing.
null

2016-04-19

505.80777

eng - Argued: 2016-04-19. Docket number: 4-15-0152WC
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: W.M. Roberson v. Anthony Saint Val

Appellate case number: 01-16-01001-CV

Trial court case number: 1085226

Trial court: County Civil Court at Law No. 3 of Harris County

On December 20, 2016, appellant filed a notice of appeal in the trial court from the 

final judgment, signed on December 5, 2016. On December 16, 2016, appellant filed in 

this Court an emergency motion to stay execution of the writ of possession. By order dated 

December 29, 2016, we stayed execution of the writ of possession. 

Upon further review, we note that we may not stay the judgment of a county court 

in an eviction suit pending appeal unless, within ten days of the signing of the judgment, 

the appellant files a supersedeas bond in an amount set by the county court. See TEX. PROP.

CODE ANN. § 24.007(a) (West Supp. 2016); Phillips v. Branch Banking & Trust Co., No. 

03–11–00461–CV, 2012 WL 424875, at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin, Feb. 1, 2012, order). 

Based only on the documents filed in this Court, there is no indication what the supersedeas 

bond amount was as set by the trial court or that appellant posted that bond amount within 

ten days of the signing of the December 5, 2016 final judgment. 

Accordingly, we withdraw our stay order that issued December 29, 2016. 

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Chief Justice Sherry Radack

  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: April 27, 2017
D AN W EISS

M ANAGING D IRECTOR

, I NTERNATIONAL & R EGULATORY A FFAIRS ( 713 ) 324

- 6076

DAN

. WEISS @ COAIR

. COM

April 18 , 2011

Esta Rosenberg, Chief

U.S. Carrier Licensing Division

U.S. Department of Transportation

120 0 New Jersey Avenue, S.E.

Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Application of GoJet Airlines, LLC to Amend a Statement of Authorization

Docket DOT

- OST

- 20 05

- 22547

Dear Ms. Rosenberg:

This is to advise that United has completed its poll of U.S. carrier representati ves in the

attached service list for the above

- referenced application, which was filed on April 13 . No

carrier objects to the grant of GoJet ’s request to amend its statement of authorization with ANA,

Austrian Airlines, bmi and Lufthansa to include code

- s hare service between points in the United

States and points in third countries

.

Respectfully submitted,

D an W eiss

Managing Director, International &

Regulatory Affairs

UNITED AIR LINES, INC. AND

CONTINENTAL AIRLINES, INCC ERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I have this date served a copy of the foregoing document on all

persons named below by causing a copy to be sent via email:

anita.mosner@hklaw.com (UPS)

carl.nelson@aa.com

charters@evergreena irlines .com

dkirstein@yklaw.com (Spirit)

donna.kooperstein@usdoj.gov

dwight.moore@ustranscom.mil

efaberman@wrf.com (Frontier)

gerald.murphy@crowell.com (ASA/ExpressJet)

howard.kass@usairways.com

jeff.morgan@delta.com

jhill@dowlohnes.com (Hawaiian/Jet Blue)

john.allen@faa.gov

john.fredericksen@suncountry.com

jrichardson@johnlrichardson.com (Amerijet)

jyoung@yklaw.com (Spirit)

kevin.montgomery@polaraircargo.com

lhalloway@crowell.com (ASA/ExpressJet)

matwood@cozen.com (Kalitta)

mlbenge@zsrlaw.com (World Airways)

marshall.sinick@ssd.com (Alaska/Horizon)

nssparks@fedex.com

r ussell. pommer@atlasair.com

sascha.vanderbellen@delta.com

stephen.lachter @lachterlaw.com (Astar)

Annalei Avanceña

International Regulatory Advisor

April 18 , 2011
#### The WARREN COMPANY, Inc., a corporation, Appellant, v. SPACEPORT INVESTMENT CORPORATION, a corporation, Appellee.

No. 70-1006.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 7, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.