alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
House Calendar No. 119

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 3186

[Report No. 103–347]

A BILL

To designate the United States courthouse located

Jr., United States Courthouse’’.in Houma, Louisiana, as the ‘‘George Arceneaux,

NOVEMBER 10, 1993

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be

printed
IB

House Calendar No. 119

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 3186

[Report No. 103–347]

To designate the United States courthouse located in Houma, Louisiana,

as the ‘‘George Arceneaux, Jr., United States Courthouse’’.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 29, 1993

Mr. TAUZIN (for himself, Mr. HAYES, Mr. JEFFERSON, Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana, Mr. LIVINGSTON, Mr. MCCRERY, and Mr. BAKER of Louisiana) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Public Works and Transportation

NOVEMBER 10, 1993

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

A BILL

To designate the United States courthouse located in Houma,

Louisiana, as the ‘‘George Arceneaux, Jr., United States

Courthouse’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 3186 RH

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

2 The United States courthouse located at 800 East

3 Main Street in Houma, Louisiana, is designated as the

4 ‘‘George Arceneaux, Jr., United States Courthouse’’.

5 SEC. 2. LEGAL REFERENCES.

6 Any reference in a law, regulation, document, record,

7 map, or other paper of the United States to the courthouse

8 referred to in section 1 is deemed to be a reference to

9 the ‘‘George Arceneaux, Jr., United States Courthouse’’.
#### Nancy Hamersky, Respondent, v Michael Hamersky, Appellant.

[736 NYS2d 603]

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Bivona, J.), dated March 30, 2000, as awarded the plaintiff custody of the parties’ child, directed him to pay child support in the amount of $153 per week, and awarded the plaintiff a distributive award in the sum of $6,500.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The evidence established that the defendant father interfered with the relationship between the child and the plaintiff mother. Such action is *“so*inconsistent with the best interests of the child that it raises, by itself, a strong probability that the offending party is unfit to act as a custodial parent” *(Gago v Acevedo,*214 AD2d 565, 566; *see, Matter of Carl J.B. v Dorothy T.,*186 AD2d 736, 737; *Skolnick v Skolnick,*142 AD2d 570, 571). As such, the Supreme Court’s determination to award custody to the plaintiff has a sound and substantial basis in the record *(see, Matter of Carl J.B. v Dorothy T.,*supra;*Skolnick v Skolnick, supra).*

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J.P., Smith, Crane and Cozier, JJ., concur.
##### 



Exhibit 31.1
CERTIFICATIONS I, Michael T. Willis, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of COMSYS IT
Partners, Inc. (the registrant); 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: November 10, 2004
    /s/ Michael T. WillisMichael T. WillisChairman and Chief Executive Officer 29
# C_2014042EN.01000102.xml

| 13.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 42/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 42/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.7125 — Advent/UNIT4)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2014/C 42/02)

On 30 January 2014, 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 32014M7125. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32014M7125. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---
# C_2013021EN.01001001.xml

| 24.1.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 21/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.1.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 21/10

---

New national side of euro coins intended for circulation

2013/C 21/04

Image

National side of the new commemorative 2-euro coin intended for circulation and issued by Germany

National side of the new commemorative 2-euro coin intended for circulation and issued by Germany

Euro coins intended for circulation have legal tender status throughout the euro area. For the purpose of informing the public and all parties who handle the coins, the Commission publishes a description of the designs of all new coins (1). In accordance with the Council conclusions of 10 February 2009 (2), euro-area Member States and countries that have concluded a monetary agreement with the Community providing for the issuing of euro coins are allowed to issue commemorative euro coins intended for circulation, provided that certain conditions are met, particularly that only the 2-euro denomination is used. These coins have the same technical characteristics as other 2-euro coins, but their national face features a commemorative design that is highly symbolic in national or European terms.

1

2

Issuing country: Germany

Subject of commemoration: 50th anniversary of the signing of the Élysée Treaty

Description of the design: The coin, which was designed by Yves Sampo of the Monnaie de Paris, Stefanie Lindner of the Berlin State Mint, Alina Hoyer (Berlin) and Sneschana Russewa-Hoyer (Berlin), depicts stylised portraits of the Élysée Treaty’s signatories (the then-Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany Konrad Adenauer and the former President of the French Republic Charles de Gaulle), their signatures and the words ‘50 ANS JAHRE’ with the year ‘2013’ in the centre, the words ‘TRAITÉ DE L’ÉLYSÉE’ at the top and the words ‘ÉLYSÉE-VERTRAG’ at the bottom. The right side of the inner part also features the mint mark of the respective mint (‘A’, ‘D’, ‘F’, ‘G’ or ‘J’) as well as the issuing country’s code ‘D’.

The coin’s outer ring depicts the 12 stars of the European flag.

Number of coins to be issued: 11 million

Date of issue: January 2013

---

(1)  See OJ C 373, 28.12.2001, p. 1 for the national faces of all the coins issued in 2002.

1

(2)  See the conclusions of the Economic and Financial Affairs Council of 10 February 2009 and the Commission Recommendation of 19 December 2008 on common guidelines for the national sides and the issuance of euro coins intended for circulation (OJ L 9, 14.1.2009, p. 52).

2

---
Figure 2.

Part-time Employment in the Past 12 Months by TANF and Poverty Status:

2006 and 2009

Notes: This analysis includes only families with children under age 18. For information on confidentiality protection and sampling and

nonsampling error, see <http://www.census.gov/sipp/source.html>.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), 2004 Panel Waves 6–8, 2008 Panel Waves 1–3.

In percent

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

No part-time employment Part-time employment 1–11 months Part-time employment all 12 months

All families TANF families Poor non-TANF families Other non-TANF families

2006 2009 2006 2009 2006 2009 2006 2009
U.S. flag
              An official website of the United States government Skip to main content   end of header Census.gov Newsroom Releases African American Business Ownership
 Newsroom Archive
 Skip left menu navigation
 About the Newsroom
 				Facts for Features
 				**News Releases**
 				Press Kits
 				Tip Sheets
 Release Information CB11-R.14 **Contact:**  Briana KayaPublic Information Office
301-763-3030/3762 (fax)
 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:  TUESDAY, FEB. 8, 2011 Census Bureau Reports a 58 Percent Increase in the Number of Black-Owned Businesses in the Chicago Metro Area The number of black-owned businesses in the Chicago-Joliet-Naperville, Ill.-Ind.-Wis., metropolitan statistical area increased to 101,586 in 2007 from 64,380 in 2002, a 57.8 percent increase, the U.S. Census Bureau announced today. Over the same period, receipts generated by these businesses increased 42.1 percent to $6.8 billion. Nationally, the number of black-owned businesses rose to 1.9 million, a 60.5 percent increase, and sales by these businesses increased to $137.5 billion, a 55.1 percent increase. Industries in the metro area with the largest number of black-owned businesses included repair, maintenance, personal and laundry services (27,181 businesses); and health care and social assistance (25,806 businesses). These new data come from the 2007 Survey of Business Owners, which is part of the 2007 Economic Census. This survey provides detailed information every five years for black-owned businesses, including the number of firms, sales and receipts, number of paid employees and annual payroll for states, counties, cities and metropolitan areas
.  The Survey of Business Owners is conducted every five years as part of the economic census. The 2007 survey collected data from a sample of more than 2.3 million businesses. Data collected in a sample survey are subject to sampling variability, as well as nonsampling errors. Sources of nonsampling errors include errors of response, nonreporting and coverage. More details concerning the SBO survey design, methodology and data limitations can be found at <https://www.census.gov/econ/sbo/methodology.html>.
  CONNECT WITH US

Information Quality
                    Data Linkage Infrastructure
                    Data Protection and Privacy Policy
                    Accessibility      
                    FOIA
                    Inspector General
                    No FEAR Act
                    U.S. Department of Commerce
                    USA.gov
                   Measuring America's People, Places, and Economy
# C_2013343EN.01001502.xml

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 343/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 343/15

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6995 — Reggeborgh/Boskalis/VSMC)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2013/C 343/03

On 29 October 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 32013M6995. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32013M6995. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---
#### Charles Lee RADFORD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 78-241.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

July 26, 1978.

Jack 0. Johnson, Public Defender, Bar-town, and Douglas A. Wallace, Asst. Public Defender, Bradenton, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Robert J. Landry, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Charles Lee Radford filed this appeal from his conviction and sentence for the felony offense of battery of a law enforcement officer under Section 784.07(2), Florida Statutes (1977). He contends that the information filed against him charged only simple battery, a misdemeanor under Section 784.03, Florida Statutes, and, therefore, the circuit court did not have jurisdiction over the offense, and the judgment of conviction of a felony and eighteen-month sentence are void. We agree and reverse.

The information in pertinent part charged appellant with “BATTERY ON POLICE OFFICER” in that he “did unlawfully commit battery upon THOMAS BOY-SEN, a Deputy Sheriff of Charlotte County, while acting in the capacity of his official duties, by actually and intentionally touching or striking said person against said person’s will, in violation of Florida Statute 784.03.” The felony battery statute is 784.-07(2) which provides in pertinent part as follows: “Whenever any person is charged with *knowingly*committing . . . battery upon a law enforcement officer . while the officer ... is engaged in the lawful performance of his duties, the offense for which the person is charged shall be ... a felony of the third degree.” (Emphasis supplied). The misdemeanor battery statute is 784.03. In pertinent part 784.03 reads as follows: “(1) A person commits battery if he: (a) Actually and intentionally touches or strikes another *1304person against the will of the other; or (b) Intentionally causes bodily harm to an individual. (2) Whoever commits battery shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree . . . .”

It is quite clear that the language of the information under which appellant was charged does not track the statutory language of Section 784.07(2). An information must allege each of the essential elements of a crime to be valid; no essential element should be left to inference. *State v. Dye,*346 So.2d 538 (Fla. 1977). In addition the information concludes with the usual reference to the pertinent statutory section which in this case alleges “in violation of Florida Statute 784.03,” which is the misdemeanor statute.

Since the information charged a misdemeanor and not a felony, the circuit court did not acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter, and the judgment and sentence against appellant are void. Although the defect was not raised in the trial court, being jurisdictional it cannot be cured by waiver or consent. *Pope v. State,*268 So.2d 173 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972), *cert. discharged,*283 So.2d 99 (Fla. 1973).

Accordingly, the judgment and sentence herein are vacated and the cause is reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

HOBSON, Acting C. J., BOARDMAN and OTT, JJ., concur.
Document

Exhibit 10.2

FIRST AMENDMENT TO AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


    This FIRST AMENDMENT TO AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”) is made and entered into by and between Taylor Morrison, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and Louis Steffens (the “Executive”), effective as of July 26, 2022.


    WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive previously entered into that certain Amended and Restated Employment Agreement, effective as of October 26, 2021 (the “Employment Agreement”); and


    WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive desire to amend the Employment Agreement as set forth in this Amendment.


    NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises and the mutual promises, terms, provisions, and conditions set forth in this Amendment, the parties hereby agree as follows, effective as of the date hereof:


1.Modification of Company Obligations upon Termination of Employment.  Section 5(b) of the Employment Agreement (Termination without Cause or Resignation with Good Reason) is amended by adding a new subsection (v) that reads as follows:


“(v)    if such termination is a CIC Qualifying Termination, then the Company shall pay the Executive a prorated portion of the annual profit sharing program bonus payable with respect to the calendar year in which such termination occurs, determined on a daily basis, based solely on the actual level of achievement of the applicable performance goals for such year, and payable if and when annual profit sharing program bonuses are paid to other senior executives of the Company with respect to such year;”


2.Except as set forth in this Amendment, all terms of the Employment Agreement shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect and are hereby ratified and confirmed.


3.Section 13 (Governing Law) and Section 21 (Dispute Resolution) of the Employment Agreement are incorporated by reference, mutatis mutandis, as though fully set forth herein. 


4.This Amendment may be executed in multiple counterparts (and may be delivered  by facsimile or in portable document format (.pdf)), each of which shall be deemed an original but all of which when taken together shall constitute one and the same instrument.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment has been executed by the Company by its duly authorized representative, and by the Executive, as of the date first above written.


EXECUTIVE                        TAYLOR MORRISON, INC.




/s/ Louis Steffens                        By: /s/Sheryl D. Palmer
Louis Steffens                                 Name: Sheryl Palmer    
                                         Title:  Chairman, President & CEO
EXHIBIT 23
                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


Consent of Independent Accountants

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements of
Datamarine International, Inc. and Subsidiaries on Form S-8 (File No. 2-68937)
pertaining to the Employee Stock Purchase Plan, on Form S-8 (File No. 33-48532)
pertaining to the 1991 Stock Option Plan, and on Form S-8 (File No. 333-06927)
pertaining to the 1995 Stock Option Plan for Non-employee Directors of our
reports dated December 20, 1996, except for Note 13 to the financial statements
as to which the date is January 8, 1997, on our audits of the consolidated
financial statements and financial statement schedule of Datamarine
International, Inc. and Subsidiaries as of September 28, 1996 and September 30,
1995, and for the years ended September 28, 1996, September 30, 1995 and
October 1, 1994 which reports are included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.


/s/:COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P

Seattle, Washington
January 8, 1997
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1 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 Income Opportunity Realty Investors,
Inc. (the Company), on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2004, as
filed with Securities Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Robert N. Crouch II, Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, and
Acting Principal Executive Officer, of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company. Date: November 15, 2004
    By:
    /s/ Robert N. Crouch IIRobert N. Crouch IIExecutive Vice President, Chief Financial
Officer, and Acting Principal Executive Officer