alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.3  Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc.
Annual Team Incentive Plan (ATIP) Policy
January 2004(supersedes January 2003)  Purpose:  To set forth the details of the Annual Team Incentive Plan (ATIP) for
management employees.  All management
employees participate in the ATIP. 
Their awards are based on the Companys specified financial and
operational performance.  Application:  This policy applies to all full-time and part-time management
employees.  It also applies to employees
who transfer to or from an affiliate of the Company during the plan year.  Award Determination and Payment:  The ATIP award is based on the achievement of the Companys specified
financial and operational goals.  Each
salary band is assigned a target award.  The award is split between a fixed team-based award of 60 percent and a
variable individual award of 40 percent. Each employee is eligible to receive
from 0 to 150 percent of the target award based on the individuals
contribution.  The award is included in the employees annual base pay used in the
calculation of an employees pension benefit.  1 
   Policies:  1.
  
  An employee transferring from an affiliate of the Company during the
  plan year will be eligible for an award based on the full plan year unless
  other provisions have been made by the affiliate.2.
  
  An award will not be paid to an employee who transfers to an
  affiliate of the Company, unless the affiliate has not made provisions for
  the employee to be included in its award program.3.
  
  An external hire joining the Company during the year will have
  his/her award prorated to reflect full months of actual service during the
  year.4.
  
  A part-time employee will also be eligible for an award that will be
  calculated on his/her annual base earnings exclusive of overtime payments.5.
  
  If an employee becomes disabled or takes a leave of absence for more
  than 90 calendar days, the employees award will be prorated based on the
  number of full months of active service during the year.6.
  
  An award will not be paid to an employee who leaves prior to
  December 31st of the plan year due to resignation,
  termination or retirement.7.
  
  The target award percentage for the year will be based on the
  employees band at year-end.8.
  
  An employee who receives an unsatisfactory performance review is not
  eligible for an award.  2 
   Responsibilities and Authorities:  1.
  
  The Board of Directors will evaluate and approve the Companys
  performance criteria.2.
  
  The Board of Directors will evaluate and approve the Companys
  achievement of specified financial and operational goals.3.
  
  Without limiting the Boards ability to prescribe reasonable
  compensation, the Board may, at its discretion and in consultation with the
  Chief Executive Officer, adjust ATIP awards to reflect strategic and other
  factors affecting business operations and results, although in the absence of
  extraordinary circumstances it is not expected that such adjustment would
  exceed plus or minus 25 percent.4.
  
  The Board may also make other adjustments it deems appropriate, based
  on an employees performance.  3
#### Migdalia BRUSCANTINI, widow of Emilio Bruscantini, Deceased, Petitioner, v. The STATE of Florida et al., Respondents.

No. 73-991.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Aug. 7, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 10, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Certiorari dismissed.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-03-00071-CR

Eddie Wayne Palmer, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 27TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 53,037, HONORABLE JOE CARROLL, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant Eddie Wayne Palmer pleaded guilty to stealing property worth more than

$1500. S ee Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 31.03(a), (e)(4)(A) (West 2003). The court adjudged him guilty

and sentenced him to two years in state jail.

Appellant’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief concluding that the appeal is

frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of A nders v. California

, 386 U.S. 738

(1967), by presenting a

professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no

arguable grounds to be advanced. S ee also Penson v. Ohio

, 488 U.S. 75 (1988); High v. State

, 573

S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State

, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Te x

. Crim. App. 1974);

Jackson v. State

, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Gainous v. State

, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.

Crim. App. 1969). A copy of counsel’s brief was delivered to appellant, and he was advised of his

right to examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed.2 We have reviewed the record and counsel’s brief and agree that the appeal is frivolous

and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

__________________________________________

Bea Ann Smith, Justice

Before Chief Justice Law, Justices B. A. Smith and Patterson

Affirmed

Filed: December 4, 2003

Do Not Publish
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                         2519000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  5620000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    4014000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              15493000
<PP&E>                                        21047000
<DEPRECIATION>                                15130000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                28087000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         11979000
<BONDS>                                        2023000
<COMMON>                                        230000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                     4943000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  28087000
<SALES>                                       33136000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              33136000
<CGS>                                         29494000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 34303000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              911000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (1868000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (1110000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (758000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                2552000      
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   1598000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.09
        

</TABLE>
261 La. 532

#### Mosel V. ARMSTRONG v. JEFFERSON DISPOSAL COMPANY et al.

No. 52348.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 13, 1972.

In re: Mosel V. Armstrong applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Jefferson. 258 So.2d 213.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal, there is no error of law in its judgment.
#### Mrs. Kathryn McNEAL, Individually and as Tutrix of her minor child, Myrna McNeal, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 3980.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

Oct. 27, 1972.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 6, 1972.

Writ Granted Jan. 15, 1973.

Mike Wahlder, Alexandria, and Gil Smith, Natchez, Miss., for plaintiff-appellant.

Gist, Methvin & Trimble, by DeWitt T. Methvin, Jr., Alexandria, for plaintiff-ap-pellee.

Before SAVOY, HOOD and MILLER, JJ.

SAVOY, Judge.

On August 17, 1969, Vester L. McNeal, his wife, Kathryn McNeal, and their minor daughter, Myrna McNeal, were involved in an accident in the State of Mississippi. McNeal was driving the car, and it left the highway and ran down an embankment, injuring McNeal, his wife and daughter. As a result of the accident Vester L. McNeal died. Mrs. McNeal filed suit individually and on behalf of her daughter against the insurer of the McNeal automobile in Rap-ides Parish, Louisiana.

On the date of the accident, the McNeal family was domiciled in Rapides Parish, Louisiana, where the instant suit was filed. Defendant filed a motion for a summary judgment stating that the Supreme Court of Mississippi held that inter-family tort suits were not allowed in that State.

During the pendency of the instant suit, Mrs. McNeal filed suit individually and on behalf of her minor daughter in the Chancery Court of Mississippi against the defendant herein and the administrator of her deceased husband.

*500After the suit was filed in Mississippi, counsel in the instant case agreed that no further action would be taken herein pending a decision by the Mississippi Supreme Court, with the exception that a motion for summary judgment which had been overruled was recalled and set aside.

The Chancery Court of Mississippi rejected the damages of plaintiff and her daughter. The Supreme Court of Mississippi affirmed the judgment. McNeal v. Administrator of Estate of McNeal, Miss., 254 So.2d 521 (1971).

Defendant in the instant case filed an exception of res judicata which was maintained by the district court. Plaintiff has appealed.

Counsel in brief concedes that unless our State Supreme Court reverses Johnson v. St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company, 256 La. 289, 236 So.2d 216 (1970), the judgment in this case must be affirmed.

In view of the decision of the Supreme Court of Mississippi and the Johnson case, supra, we have no alternative but to affirm the judgment of the district court at appellant’s costs.

Affirmed.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

December 27, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

128784 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

LEO HALL and SUSAN HALL, Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiffs-Appellants, Justices 

v SC: 128784 

 COA: 252814 

Oakland CC: 02-039850-CK 

DOUGLAS S. SMALL and LORETTA G. 

MUZZY, 

Defendants, 

and 

RICHARD SIDICK, CAROL SHELTON, d/b/a

REAL ESTATE ONE, NORMA JEAN 

SPREEMAN, ROBERT A. BURLEY, and 

BURLEY & DEBROW, LTD., d/b/a CENTURY 

21 COUNTRY SQUIRE, 

 Defendants-Appellees. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 12, 2005 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

t1219 

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. 

December 27, 2005 

Clerk
**Exhibit 21**

 

**SUBSIDIARIESOF REGISTRANT**

 

Registrant has no parent; see proxy statement for Registrant’sprincipal shareholders.  The followingare Registrant’s subsidiaries included in the consolidated financialstatements:

 
| **Name of Subsidiary  (Each Owned 100% by Registrant  Except as Otherwise Stated)** | ** ** | **State or Other  Jurisdiction  of Incorporation** |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------|----------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                                |       |                                               |
| Castle  Concrete Company                                                            |       | Colorado                                           |
| Continental  Catalina, Inc.*                                                   |       | Arizona                                            |
| Continental  Copper, Inc.                                                      |       | Arizona                                            |
| Edens  Industrial Park, Inc.                                                   |       | Illinois                                           |
| McKinney  Door and Hardware, Inc.                                              |       | Colorado                                           |
| Phoenix  Manufacturing, Inc.                                                   |       | Arizona                                            |
| Rocky  Mountain Ready Mix Concrete, Inc.                                       |       | Colorado                                           |
| Transit  Mix Concrete Co.                                                           |       | Colorado                                           |
| Transit  Mix of Pueblo, Inc.                                                   |       | Colorado                                           |
| Williams  Furnace Co.                                                               |       | Delaware                                           |

 

----

*owned by Continental Copper, Inc.

 

----
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed December 23, 2015.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D12-1729

Lower Tribunal No. 05-26333

________________

Ronald Salazar,

Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida,

Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Ellen Sue

Venzer, Judge.

Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Manuel Alvarez, Assistant Public

Defender, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Jeffrey R. Geldens, Assistant

Attorney General, for appellee.

Before SALTER, EMAS and SCALES, JJ.

PER CURIAM.
Ronald Salazar appeals his conviction and sentence for first-degree murder

and sexual battery of a child under twelve. We hold the trial court did not err in

denying the motion to suppress statements made by Salazar. The question before

the trial court was whether Salazar was “in custody” for Miranda purposes at the

time the statements were made. The proper inquiry is whether, under the totality

of the circumstances, “a reasonable person placed in the same position would

believe that his or her freedom of action was curtailed to a degree associated with

actual arrest.” Ramirez v. State, 739 So. 2d 568, 573 (Fla. 1999). Following an

evidentiary hearing, the trial court concluded that Salazar was not in custody or

undergoing custodial interrogation at the time he made the relevant statements. 

We find no error in this determination. See Lorenzo v. State, 948 So. 2d 1012

(Fla. 3d DCA 2007); Cotton v. State, 901 So. 2d 241 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Ramsey

v. State, 731 So. 2d 79 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Wright v. State, 161 So. 3d 442 (Fla.

5th DCA 2014). 

We find no merit to the other point raised on appeal by Salazar. 

Accordingly, we affirm Salazar’s conviction and sentence. 

Affirmed.

2
```

                                                                    Exhibit 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Charles E. Johnson, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of PROLIANCE
INTERNATIONAL, INC.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal
quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.

Date:  August 12, 2005                   /s/ Charles E. Johnson
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                         Charles E. Johnson
                                         President and Chief Executive Officer
```
#### John P. McNAMARA, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-307.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 31, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 32


                            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 The Hartcourt Companies, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Carrie Hartwick, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 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 results of operations of
         the Company.


November 7, 2004                             By: /s/ Carrie Hartwick
                                                 ---------------------------
                                                     Carrie Hartwick
                                                     CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                                                     CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
# C_2012156EN.01000901.xml

| 2.6.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.6.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/9

---

Interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations (1):

1

1,00 % on 1 June 2012

Euro exchange rates (2)

2

1 June 2012

2012/C 156/05

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2322 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 96,25 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4307 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,80500 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 8,9947 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2008 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,5745 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,787 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 306,00 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6980 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,4125 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4722 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,3048 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,2772 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,2794 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,5629 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6422 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5945 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 454,89 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 10,6345 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,8486 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5548 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 11 722,21 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 3,9434 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 53,661 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 41,7546 |
| THB | Thai baht | 39,307 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,5021 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 17,8118 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 68,5190 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2322

JPY

Japanese yen

96,25

DKK

Danish krone

7,4307

GBP

Pound sterling

0,80500

SEK

Swedish krona

8,9947

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2008

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,5745

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,787

HUF

Hungarian forint

306,00

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6980

PLN

Polish zloty

4,4125

RON

Romanian leu

4,4722

TRY

Turkish lira

2,3048

AUD

Australian dollar

1,2772

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,2794

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,5629

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6422

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5945

KRW

South Korean won

1 454,89

ZAR

South African rand

10,6345

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,8486

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5548

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

11 722,21

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

3,9434

PHP

Philippine peso

53,661

RUB

Russian rouble

41,7546

THB

Thai baht

39,307

BRL

Brazilian real

2,5021

MXN

Mexican peso

17,8118

INR

Indian rupee

68,5190

---

(1)  Rate applied to the most recent operation carried out before the indicated day. In the case of a variable rate tender, the interest rate is the marginal rate.

1

(2)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

2

Source:

---
No. 11203.

#### The City of Cleveland et al. *v.*Johnson.

Decided February 1, 1910.

Error to Circuit Court of Cuyahoga county.

*Mr. Nezvton D. Baker,*city solicitor, and *Messrs. Wilcox, Wilkin, Stevens & I.ocher,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Messrs. Ford, Snyder & Tilden,*for defendant in *558error.

Judgment reversed. Grounds stated in journal entry.

It is ordered and adjudged by this court, that the judgment of the said circuit court be, and the same hereby is, reversed and this court proceeding to render the judgment which said circuit court should have rendered upon the facts by it found, it is. considered and adjudged that the original petition of said T. H. Johnson, defendant in error, be, and it hereby is, dismissed, for the reason that said Johnson by signing the petition to the municipal council for the improvement embracing the sidewalk as a part of'the street improvement waived the right which he sought' to enforce in this case.

Summers, C. J., Crew, Spear, Davis and Si-iauck, JJ., concur.