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

OFhCE.OF THE AITORNEY GENERAL dF TEXAS 

AUS’I’IN 

Honorable J. L. Fitts, Frosldent 

San Jacinto 3iver Conservation and Reolaration.Diotrlct 

Conroo, Texas 

Dear Sir: 

of Direotpurchase defense bonds of the 

surplus funds bo1ongin.g to th ch are not imediately needed for ezpenditur 0988 for which 

the District is created. 

tody has been oxpr 

by the I..e.c$slature 

In othors. In eat 

oharaoter of the s 

nds in their cuaain public or"ficers 

p the Constitution 

such moneys my be inIn every 0880 where t5e 

i of $ublic funds, it has 

nd no provision of law adthorizing 

the Foard 0 s of tho San Saointo Eiver Conservation 

and Eeclanstio rict to invest the rurpluu funds of the 

District. Such an authority ia not to be l:~iplle~ from the 

power to nmcge t.!m affairs of the District. City of Bonham 

vs. Taylor, 81 TeX. 59, 16 S. H. 555. 

Tours very truly
# C_2012402EN.01001101.xml

| 29.12.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 402/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.12.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 402/11

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6785 — General Motors France/SSPF/Auto Distribution Provence)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2012/C 402/02

On 20 December 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 32012M6785. 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 32012M6785. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2014 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2014

  To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for clarification 
 regarding the children to whom entitlement to educational assistance 
  may be transferred under Post-9/11 Educational Assistance, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 11, 2014

  Mr. Durbin introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
             referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for clarification 
 regarding the children to whom entitlement to educational assistance 
  may be transferred under Post-9/11 Educational Assistance, and for 
                            other purposes.

    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 ``GI Education Benefit Fairness Act of 
2014''.

SEC. 2. CLARIFICATION REGARDING THE CHILDREN TO WHOM ENTITLEMENT TO 
              EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE MAY BE TRANSFERRED UNDER POST-9/11 
              EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE.

    (a) In General.--Subsection (c) of section 3319 of title 38, United 
States Code, is amended to read as follows:
    ``(c) Eligible Dependents.--
            ``(1) Transfer.--An individual approved to transfer an 
        entitlement to educational assistance under this section may 
        transfer the individual's entitlement as follows:
                    ``(A) To the individual's spouse.
                    ``(B) To one or more of the individual's children.
                    ``(C) To a combination of the individuals referred 
                to in subparagraphs (A) and (B).
            ``(2) Definition of children.--For purposes of this 
        subsection, the term `children' includes dependents described 
        in section 1072(2)(I) of title 10.''.
    (b) Applicability.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply with respect to educational assistance payable under chapter 33 
of title 38, United States Code, before, on, or after the date of the 
enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### Hal Walter METZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-574.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Feb. 22, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
# C_2013220EN.01000501.xml

| 1.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 220/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 220/5

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6975 — Dubal Holding/MDCI/EGA JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2013/C 220/03

On 23 July 2013, 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 32013M6975. 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 32013M6975. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
Exhibit








Exhibit 10.10
NAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICER COMPENSATION
The following table sets forth the base salaries of the Named Executive Officers1 (the “NEOs”) of Franklin Resources, Inc. (the “Company”) as of September 30, 2016.  
	
				
	Name and Principal Positions 
	Base Salary

	Gregory E. Johnson
Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
	$
	780,132
	


	Kenneth A. Lewis
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
	$
	525,000
	


	Vijay C. Advani
Co-President
	$
	600,000
	


	Jennifer M. Johnson
Co-President
	$
	600,000
	


	Craig S. Tyle
Executive Vice President and General Counsel
	$
	475,000
	





The Named Executive Officers are also eligible to: 


Incentive Compensation


		
	(a)
	receive an annual cash incentive award pursuant to the Company’s 2014 Key Executive Incentive Compensation Plan and the Company’s Amended and Restated Annual Incentive Compensation Plan, each as amended and restated; 




		
	(b)
	participate in the Company’s equity incentive program, which currently involves restricted stock awards and restricted stock unit awards (including awards and units based on performance), in each case pursuant to the Company’s 2002 Universal Stock Incentive Plan, as amended and restated; and




		
	(c)
	receive additional cash or equity payments or awards for special recognition of significant contributions or for retention purposes.




Benefit Plans and Other Arrangements 


		
	(a)
	participate in the Company’s broad-based benefit programs generally available to its salaried employees, including health, disability and life insurance programs, the Franklin Templeton 401(k) Retirement Plan and the Company’s 1998 Employee Stock Investment Plan, as amended and restated (the “ESIP”); provided that Mr. G. Johnson and Ms. J. Johnson are not eligible to participate in the ESIP; and




		
	(b)
	receive certain perquisites offered by the Company, including club memberships, and, in certain limited cases, use of the Company’s aircraft for personal use.  




__________________________
1    The Named Executive Officers listed herein are the Company’s principal executive officer, principal financial officer, and the three most highly compensated executive officers of the Company as of September 30, 2016.
Exhibit








AMENDMENT 
TO 
CINCINNATI BELL INC. 
EXECUTIVE DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN 


This is an Amendment to the Cincinnati Bell Inc. Executive Deferred Compensation Plan (the “Plan”), which Amendment is effective as of October 30, 2015, to document resolutions adopted by the Board of Directors of Cincinnati Bell Inc. on October 30, 2015, as follows:


Section 8.1(b) of the Plan is hereby amended to read as follows: 


8.1(b)    Effect of Termination of Plan.  The Plan is hereby irrevocably terminated effective October 30, 2015 (the “Plan Termination Date”).  On and after the Plan Termination Date, Participants may not make deferrals under the Plan, and no Company Matching Contributions or any other Company contribution may be made under the Plan.  Each Participant’s remaining accrued and unpaid benefits shall be paid to the participant in the form of a single lump sum payment on November 7, 2016, with the Participant-elected deferral accounts being distributed in accordance with plan termination rules in Treasury Regulation Section 1.409A-3(j)(4)(ix) and the Company Matching Contribution accounts being distributed in accordance with the limited cashout provisions of Treasury Regulation Section 1.409A-3(j)(4)(v). Notwithstanding the foregoing, any benefits under the Plan that would be payable under the Plan prior to the Plan Termination Date if the Company had not taken action to terminate the Plan shall be paid in accordance with their original schedule.  


IN ORDER TO EFFECT THE FOREGOING PLAN REVISIONS, the sponsor of the Plan, has caused its name to be subscribed to this Plan amendment, to be effective as of October 30, 2015.


	
					
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	CINCINNATI BELL INC.

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	By
	/s/ Christopher J. Wilson

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	Title
	Vice President and General Counsel

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	Date
	November 7, 2016
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1913 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 1913

        To make permanent the Payments in Lieu of Taxes program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 13, 2014

   Mr. Udall of Colorado (for himself and Mr. Bennet) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                      Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
        To make permanent the Payments in Lieu of Taxes program.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. PAYMENTS IN LIEU OF TAXES.

    Section 6906 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by 
striking ``of fiscal years 2008 through 2013'' and inserting ``fiscal 
year''.
                                 <all>
```
#### George C. ANDERSON, Appellant, v. Patsy R. ANDERSON, Appellee.

No. 7398.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

Dec. 29, 1967.

*342Walter W. Manley, Lakeland, for appellant.

Oliver L. Green, Jr., Lakeland, for ap-pellee.

PIERCE, Judge.

This is an appeal by George C. Anderson from a final decree and a post-decretal order entered in a divorce decree in the Court below.

Anderson filed suit in the Polk County Circuit Court against his then wife, Patsy R. Anderson, asking for a divorce and custody of their two minor children, alleging as grounds therefor adultery and mental cruelty. Defendant wife counterclaimed on the ground of mental cruelty, asking the same relief plus alimony, support money for the children, and attorney’s fees.

Testimony was taken before the Chancellor personally upon the issues so made up, resulting in a final decree being entered finding “that the equities of this cause are with the Defendant, Patsy R. Anderson, and are against the Plaintiff, George C. Anderson, and that the Defendant has proven the allegations of her Cross-Complaint by competent evidence”. The decree thereupon awarded her a divorce, and custody of their two minor children, aged 4 years and 2 years respectively, an amount for child support, and also “the sum of $1.00 per year as alimony”. The decree was entered on June 1st, 1966; and on August 23, 1966, upon stipulation of the parties, the Court entered order eliminating the payment of alimony as directed by the decree. Plaintiff appeals here and assigns as error entry of the decree and the findings contained therein. We affirm.

This was strictly a fact case, and the able Chancellor resolved all conflicts in the evidence and made findings and conclusions which find their source in ample competent, substantial evidence. The former husband contends that the evidence proved his wife was guilty of adultery. This is just another way of saying that he does not approve the Chancellor’s findings, which hardly makes them legally wrong. As a matter of fact, the final decree could have proceeded from no other conclusion except that the Chancellor did not believe she was guilty of adultery.

He found the equities to be in her favor and against her husband. He found she had proven the allegations of her cross-complaint. He awarded her alimony, albeit in a nominal sum, which is non-allowable to an adulterous wife. And as to custody of the children, she could have been awarded such custody even if the Court had found her guilty of adultery, provided the record sufficiently convinced the Chancellor that she was a good mother. We have just had occasion, in McAnespie v. McAnespie, Fla.App.1967, 200 So.2d 606, after an extensive review of the authorities, to make this very holding. But it is unnecessary to invoke *McAnespie*here because the Chancellor did not make such finding — rather to the contrary. The final decree and post-decretal order appealed from are affirmed.

ALLEN, Acting C. J., and HOBSON, J., concur.
#### STATE of Florida ex rel. Jerry SMITH, Relator, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Corrections for the State of Florida, Respondent.

No. 72-692.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 9, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Habeas Corpus dismissed.
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


In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of CFC International,  Inc.
and  subsidiaries  (the "Company") for the quarterly  period ended September 30,
2004 as filed  with the  Securities  and  Commission  on the  date  hereof  (the
"Report"),  I, Dennis W. Lakomy,  Executive Vice  President and Chief  Financial
Officer of the Company,  hereby  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  ss.  1350,  as
adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best
of my knowledge:

     (1) The Report fully  complies  with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities and 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.


Date:  October 26, 2004             /s/           Dennis W. Lakomy
                                    ------------------------------
                                        Dennis W. Lakomy
                                        Executive Vice President and
                                        Chief Financial Officer

This   certification   accompanies  the  Report  pursuant  to  ss.  906  of  the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and shall not,  except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of ss.
18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided by CFC International,  Inc., and will be retained by CFC International,
Inc.  and  furnished to the  Securities  Exchange  Commission  or its staff upon
request.
261 La. 534

#### FOOD CREDIT, INC. v. Kenneth CONWAY.

No. 52359.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 13, 1972.

In re: Food Credit, Inc. applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of East Baton Rouge. 258 So.2d 612.

Writ denied. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal the result is correct.
September 11, 2012.



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

THALIA DE SANTIAGO , Appellant
NO. 14

- 12

- 00664

- CR V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

________________________________ This cause was heard on the motion of the a ppellant to withdraw notice of appeal. Having considered the motion the Court orders the appeal DISMISSED

. We order appellant to pay the costs incurred by this appeal. We further order the mandate be issued immediately.
We further order this decision ce rtified below for observance.
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: The State of Texas v. Dennis Edward Gallien

Appellate case number: 01

- 19

- 00882

- CR

Trial court case number: 1541083

Trial court: 339th District Court of Harris Co unty

The State has filed a “ Motion to Submit Appeal that is Given ‘ Precedence in [this

Court’s] docket ’ by Statute

. ” The State ’ s motion is granted

.

The State ’ s appeal will be set for submission on the Court ’ s early February docke t with

the fo rmal submission notice regarding details of the submission , including the panel assignment

, to foll ow.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: Richard H i ghtower

Acting individually

Date: December 10, 2020
#### Catherine Diane HULME, Appellant, v. John Bryant HULME, Appellee.

No. 73-1047.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 16, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

CLARK EMMANUEL MEAD, JR.,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 813 MAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 8th day of May, 2019

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
P. 1


# OAR Box 1107 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



## Document

Number: 

# 25 ) VI-B- 4 Docket Number: 

# A-81-2 1

Printed 4/11/20083:03:45PM

Sheet 25of 90P. 2 

# ft-si-ai l/ysH

MEMORANDUM DATE : Februar y

22 , 198 9 TO : Viny l Chlorid e Docke t FROM : Kare nK . Fidle r SUBJECT : Exemptio no f Crud e an d Intermediat e ED C Storag e Tank s fro m Definitio no f ED C Purificatio nin4 0 CF R61.61(o )
OnJanuar y

23 , 1987 , B F Goodric hsubmitte d informatio no nth e viny l chlorid e (VC ) emission s an d contro l cost s fo r crud e an d intermediat e ethylen e dichlorid e (EDC ) storag e tank s a t thei r Calver t City , Kentuck y facility . B F Goodric hurge d EPA t o modif y

it s definitio no f ED C purificatio ni n 4 0 CF R61.61(o ) t o specificall y exclud e thes e tank s fro m contro l requirements . T o bette r evaluat e th e emissio nan d cos t estimate s containe d inth e B F Goodric hsubmittal , a lis t o f question s wa s prepare d b y Le s Evan s o f EPA' s Chemical s an d Petroleu

m Branc han

d myself . Th e lis t o f question s wa s provide d t o B F Goodric hina lette r date d Februar y 24 , 1987 . Response s t o th e question s wer e provide d b y BF Goodric hb

y telephon e o

nMarc h5 , 198 7 an d ina lette r date d Marc h6 , 1987 . Le s Evan s an d I carefull y

reviewe d th e response s t o ou r question s an d conclude d tha t th e V C emission s an

d contro l cost s estimate s presente d b y B F Goodric hfo r thei r crud e an d intermediat e ED C storag e tank s wer e correc t a t leas t withi nanorde r o f magnitude .
# C_2013172EN.01000102.xml

| 18.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 172/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 172/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6936 — Donata/DE Master Blenders)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2013/C 172/02

On 12 June 2013, 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 32013M6936. 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 32013M6936. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---