alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### SILITRONIC CHEMICAL CORPORATION, Appellant, v. R. K. M. ENTERPRISES, Appellee.

No. 66-311.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

March 28, 1967.

Rehearing Denied April 18, 1967.

Richard H. Pritikin, North Miami, for appellant.

Hall & Brown, Arcadia, Samuel D. Wallace, Miami, for appellee.

*34Before PEARSON and CARROLL, JJ., and LOPEZ, AQUILINO, Jr., Associate Judge.

LOPEZ, AQUILINO, Jr., Associate Judge.

The appellee sued the appellant in the District Court of Bexar County, Texas, obtaining service upon the appellant by virtue of the statute which permits service upon non-resident corporations doing business in Texas. A judgment in Texas was entered against appellant by default. Thereafter, appellee filed the instant suit demanding judgment in Florida against the appellant under the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution of the United States.

■ The answer of the appellant alleged “Comes the defendant herein, by and through his attorney, and for Answer and Affirmative Defense, denies each and every; allegation of the complaint and asserts that the Texas Court had no jurisdiction over the defendant and for further affirmative defense, defendant says that the complaint was properly against Silitronic Chemical Corporation of Texas and that the defendant herein is not a proper party.”

This appeal is from the final judgment of the circuit court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida holding as follows:

> “ * * * it appearing to the Court that the foreign Judgment rendered in the District Court, 73rd Judicial District, in Bexar County, Texas, which is the basis of this suit is regular upon its face; that the Defendant has failed to establish any valid reason why said Judgment should not be given full faith and credit. Under the Laws of the State of Florida it is entitled to such consideration. * * * ”

The judgment on its face is valid. There were no proceedings had in Texas questioning jurisdiction or alleged fraud. The appellant was served and knew of pending suit and of judgment but according to appellant’s allegation, it did not respond to summons because of the tremendous expense of defending a suit in Texas and permitted it to go by default. Although the defendant could have attacked the judgment in the present suit by alleging fraud, the answer filed does not allege fraud. The judgment is affirmed upon authority of the rule stated in McFadden v. Muckerman, Fla.App.3rd, 116 So.2d 448, that those issues that would have been litigated in the proceedings themselves are not sufficient grounds to collaterally attack a decree which otherwise appears to be valid on its face. See Matsis v. Matsis, 155 Fla. 786, 21 So.2d 545; Fair v. Tampa Electric Co., 158 Fla. 15, 27 So.2d 514; Masilotti v. Masilotti, 158 Fla. 663, 28 So.2d 872

Affirmed.
Need to return call by / at/between and . Signature: 

 Project No.: 0172.08.005.607 Page 1 of 1 

 Project Name: 2011 Prelim Cat Rev CBI? 

 Yes 

 No 

TELEPHONE CALL RECORD 

 Incoming 

 Outgoing 

Date: 05/5/11 Time: 12:53 am 

 pm 

Company Name: West Virginia DEP ERG Staff Name: Kimberly Landick 

Contact Name: Renee Clevenger Contact Phone Number: (304) 926-0495 ext. 1016 

General Subject: 2009 DMR Lead Discharges 

TOPICS DISCUSSED AND ACTION TAKEN 

On May 5, 2011 at 1pm I called WV DEP and left a message for Debbie McCann (ext. 1574) requesting 

confirmation on 2009 DMR lead discharges for Alcan Rolled Products in Ravenswood, WV (WV0115932). 

On May 10, 2011 at 2pm I called the Division of Water and Waste Management of the WV DEP (304-926-

0495). I spoke with John Morgan first who then transferred me to Tonya Phillips (ext. 1010). I explained to 

Tonya that I wanted to confirm Lead discharges from Alcan Rolled Products. She explained that she would look 

into it and get back to me shortly. 

On May 10, 2011 at 3:20pm Renee Clevenger from the WV DEP returned my call (ext. 1016). She confirmed 

that the values in 2009 are listed as 5 mg/L in DMR. She stated that all measurements were non-detect or below 

the minimum detection limit (10 mg/L) and so 1⁄2 the detection limit is shown in the DMR database (which is 5 

mg/L). The values should be corrected to 10 mg/L and a below detection limit (BDL) indicator should be added.
# C_2012017EN.01000601.xml

| 20.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 17/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 17/6

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6414 — Itochu/Tessenderlo Chemie/Siemens Project Ventures/T-Power JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2012/C 17/02

On 13 January 2012, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32012M6414. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32012M6414. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
Exhibit 21

                         Continental Global Group, Inc.

               Subsidiaries of the Registrant at December 31, 2004
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                          Jurisdiction of Incorporation or
Subsidiaries (1)                          Organization                            Parent Company
<S>                                      <C>                                     <C>

Continental Conveyor & Equipment Company  Delaware                                Continental Global Group, Inc.

Continental Axle Products, Inc.           Delaware                                Continental Conveyor & Equipment
                                                                                  Company

Continental Conveyor & Equipment Pty.     Australia                               Continental Conveyor & Equipment
Ltd.                                                                              Company

BCE Holdings Pty. Ltd.                    Australia                               Continental Conveyor & Equipment Pty.
                                                                                  Ltd.

Continental ACE Pty. Ltd.                 Australia                               BCE Holdings Pty. Ltd.

Continental ACE Services Pty. Ltd.        Australia                               BCE Holdings Pty. Ltd.

Continental ACE Conveyor Components       Australia                               BCE Holdings Pty. Ltd.
Pty. Ltd.

A. Crane Pty. Ltd.                        Australia                               BCE Holdings Pty. Ltd.

Continental Control Systems Pty. Ltd.     Australia                               BCE Holdings Pty. Ltd. - 60%
                                                                                  Continental Conveyor & Equipment Pty.
                                                                                  Ltd. - 40%

Continental Conveyor International Inc.   Delaware                                Continental Conveyor & Equipment
                                                                                  Company

Continental FSW Ltd.                      United Kingdom                          Continental Conveyor International
                                                                                  Inc.

Continental Conveyor Ltd.                 United Kingdom                          Continental FSW Ltd.

Continental MECO (Proprietary) Ltd.       South Africa                            Continental Conveyor International
                                                                                  Inc.

MECO McCallum Pty. Ltd.                   Australia                               Continental Conveyor & Equipment Pty.
                                                                                  Ltd.

Goodman Conveyor Company                  Delaware                                Continental Global Group, Inc.
</TABLE>


(1)  Each of the subsidiaries listed is 100% owned by its parent company, except
     for Continental Control Systems Pty. Ltd.
Table B-5.  Standard Errors of Homeownership Rates for the United States by Age of Householder and by Family Status:  1998

                                                                                                                 Two or more
                                                   Married-            Other famOne person  household         person households
                                           United    couple
                                           States  families      Male    Female      Male     Female      Male    Female

Total                                         0.1       0.1       (X)       (X)       (X)        (X)       (X)       (X)

  Other family households...............      0.3       (X)       0.5       0.3       (X)        (X)       (X)       (X)
  One person households.................      0.2       (X)       (X)       (X)       0.3        0.3       (X)       (X)
  Two or more persons households........      0.4       (X)       (X)       (X)       (X)        (X)       0.6       0.7
   Less than 25 years...................      0.4       0.9       1.3       0.7       0.9        0.8       (X)       (X)
   25 to 29 years.......................      0.4       0.6       1.6       0.7       0.9        0.9       (X)       (X)
   30 to 34 years.......................      0.3       0.4       1.6       0.8       0.9        1.2       (X)       (X)
   35 to 39 years.......................      0.3       0.3       1.5       0.8       0.9        1.2       (X)       (X)
   40 to 44 years.......................      0.3       0.3       1.4       0.8       1.0        1.2       (X)       (X)
   45 to 49 years.......................      0.3       0.3       1.6       1.0       1.0        1.1       (X)       (X)
   50 to 54 years.......................      0.3       0.3       1.8       1.2       1.2        1.0       (X)       (X)
   55 to 59 years.......................      0.3       0.3       2.3       1.3       1.3        1.1       (X)       (X)
   60 to 64 years.......................      0.3       0.3       2.3       1.5       1.5        1.0       (X)       (X)
   65 to 69 years.......................      0.4       0.3       2.7       1.4       1.4        0.9       (X)       (X)
   70 to 74 years.......................      0.4       0.3       2.6       1.3       1.4        0.8       (X)       (X)
   75 years and over....................      0.3       0.4       1.5       0.9       0.9        0.5       (X)       (X)

     Less than 35 years.................      0.2       0.3       0.9       0.5       0.5        0.6       0.6       0.8
     35 to 44 years.....................      0.2       0.2       1.0       0.6       0.7        0.9       1.3       1.8
     45 to 54 years.....................      0.2       0.2       1.2       0.7       0.8        0.8       1.7       1.8
     55 to 64 years.....................      0.2       0.2       1.7       1.0       1.0        0.7       2.2       2.2
     65 years and over..................      0.2       0.2       1.2       0.7       0.7        0.4       2.4       2.2
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


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


**(18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**





Pursuant
      to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of
      section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned
      officers of Amacore Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), do
      hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge, that:





The
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2007 (the
      “Form 10-QSB”) of the Company 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 Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the
      financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Dated:
                November 19, 2007*/s/
                Clark A. Marcus*Clark
                A. MarcusChief
                Executive OfficerDated:
                November 19, 2007/s/
                *Giuseppe Crisafi*Giuseppe
                CrisafiChief
                Financial Officer
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Treasury

###### Internal Revenue Service

# AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Joint Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.

# DATES:

The meeting will be held Thursday, September 27, 2018.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Lisa Billups at 1-888-912-1227 or (214) 413-6523.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Joint Committee will be held Thursday, September 27, 2018, at 1:00 p.m. Eastern Time via teleconference. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. For more information please contact Lisa Billups at 1-888-912-1227 or (214) 413-6523, or write TAP Office 1114 Commerce Street, Dallas, TX 75242-1021, or post comments to the website:                     *http://www.improveirs.org.*

The agenda will include various committee issues for submission to the IRS and other TAP related topics. Public input is welcomed.

Dated: August 1, 2018.

Otis Simpson,

Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.

[FR Doc. 2018-17014 Filed 8-8-18; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
EXHIBIT 10.15
                               IRREVOCABLE PROXY

 The undersigned hereby irrevocably appoints Gerald M. Holland the
representative of the persons designated as Investors under a certain Loan
Agreement dated February 9, 1999 ("Agreement") his or its attorney, agent and
proxy, with full power of substitution, for the undersigned and in the name,
place and stead of the undersigned to vote or, if applicable, to give written
consent, in such manner as such attorneys, agents and proxies or their
substitutes shall in their sole discretion deem proper to so vote (or consent)
with respect to all Voting Shares (as defined below) which the undersigned is
or may be entitled to vote at any meeting of Continental Heritage Corporation,
a Delaware corporation ("Corporation"), held after the date hereof, whether
annual or special and whether or not an adjourned meeting (each a "Stockholder
Meeting"), or, if applicable, to give written consent with respect thereto.

 This Proxy is given under and pursuant to the terms of the Agreement in
connection with a loan made by the Lenders to the Corporation.  This Proxy is
coupled with an interest, shall be irrevocable and binding on any successor in
interest of the undersigned and shall not be terminated by operation of law
upon the occurrence of any event, including, without limitation, the death or
incapacity of the undersigned.  This Proxy shall operate to revoke any prior
proxy as to the shares.  For purposes of this irrevocable proxy, the term
"Voting Shares" shall mean all voting securities of the Corporation whether
owned on the date hereof or acquired hereafter (including without limitation,
any shares of Common Stock or Preferred Stock).

THIS PROXY MAY BE USED BY THE INVESTORS AT ANY TIME PRIOR TO REPAYMENT OF THE
INITIAL LOAN AND/OR THE ADDITIONAL LOAN  TO VOTE ON MAJOR DECISIONS PRESENTED
TO THE CORPORATION, PROVIDED HOWEVER, THAT THIS PROXY MAY NOT BE USED BY THE
INVESTORS TO VOTE TO REMOVE ANY DIRECTOR OR OFFICER FROM THE CORPORATION FOR
REASONS OTHER THAN GROSS NEGLIGENCE, THEFT, OR LEGAL INCOMPETENCY.  FURTHER,
THE INVESTORS MAY NOT VOTE TO ELECT ANY PERSON AS A DIRECTOR OF THE CORPORATION
OTHER THAN THOSE PERSONS CURRENTLY HOLDING THAT POSITION.  THIS PROXY
TERMINATES UPON REPAYMENT OF THE INITIAL LOAN AND/OR THE ADDITIONAL LOAN TO THE
INVESTORS.    


                                             /s/ Steve Gould
                                            /s/  Lee Kaplan
                                            Dated:  February 9, 1999
Document

Exhibit 10.2




September 22, 2022
Kenneth Lane
Houston, TX
Dear Ken: 
I am pleased to confirm on behalf of LyondellBasell that your new role will be Executive Vice President, Olefins and Polyolefins (O&P) reporting directly to me. This change will be effective October 1, 2022.       
Your annualized base salary will be $870,000 per year (“annual base salary”).
Your incentives (both STI and LTI), prior benefits and perquisites as well as share ownership guidelines remain unchanged.
You will continue to be eligible to participate in the amended and restated Executive Severance Plan (the “Severance Plan”) in accordance with the terms of the Severance Plan and your applicable participation agreement.
Please read, sign, scan and return this letter to Michele Gest at [redacted] to indicate your acceptance as soon as possible.
Congratulations Ken, I look forward to welcoming you on the Executive Committee as we work together to align our business strategy with execution towards our North Star.       


Sincerely, 


/s/ Peter Vanacker


Peter Vanacker
Chief Executive Officer


By signature, I acknowledge receipt of this letter and my intent to carry out the work that this new role will involve.
									
			
	/s/ Kenneth Lane 		September 26, 2022
	Signature		Date
			
	Kenneth Lane		
	Printed Name		
			






This does not change the existing terms and conditions of your current employment status. This letter is not a contract of employment for any specific or minimum term. Any prior oral or written representations to the contrary are void and our at-will relationship may not be modified except by a formal written employment contract signed by the senior officer for Human Resources at Lyondell Chemical Company.
#### Wornell CAIN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-1030.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 15, 1972.

Wornell Cain, in pro. per.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.

Before BARKDULL, C. J., and HEND-RY and HAVERFIELD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This court, proceeding in the manner outlined and recommended by the Supreme Court of the United States in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, having deferred ruling on a motion of the public defender to withdraw as counsel for the indigent defendant-appellant, and having furnished appellant with a copy of the public defender’s memorandum brief, and having allowed the appellant a reasonable specified time within which to raise any points that he chose in support of this appeal, and the appellant having failed to respond thereto, on consideration thereof upon full examination of the proceedings we conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous. Whereupon, the public defender’s said motion to withdraw is granted, and the order or judgment appealed is hereby affirmed.
#### Donald COWART and John Wayne Cowart, Petitioners, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 44082.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Sept. 28, 1973.

Certiorari denied, 277 So.2d 821.

CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, ERVIN, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANDRE ANDREWS, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

CLIFFORD SLAWINSKI; ALFRED LIO, 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-56009 

D.C. No. 2:10-cv-05850-MWFVBK 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Michael W. Fitzgerald, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 13, 2018**

Before: LEAVY, M. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

Andre Andrews appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment following a 

bench trial in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging an unreasonable seizure under 

the Fourth Amendment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review 

for clear error the district court’s findings of fact and de novo its legal conclusions. 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

MAR 22 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 15-56009 

Husain v. Olympic Airways, 316 F.3d 829, 835 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.

The district court did not clearly err in its factual findings, and, based upon 

those findings, the district court properly concluded that defendants had reasonable 

suspicion for the traffic stop. See Heien v. North Carolina, 135 S. Ct. 530, 536 

(2014) (reasonable suspicion can be based on mistakes of law or fact); Whren v. 

United States, 517 U.S. 806, 810, 812-13 (1996) (no Fourth Amendment violation 

when officer has probable cause to believe that a traffic violation occurred; an 

officer’s subjective intent is not relevant to the Fourth Amendment analysis).

AFFIRMED.