alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Order filed, May 01, 2013

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 13

- 00171

- CR

____________ RODOLFO JESUS MORALE S , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 179th District Court

Harris County, Texas Tri al Court Cause No. 1100375



### ORDER
The reporter’s record in this case was due April 29, 2013

. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.1. The court has not received a request to extend time for filing the record.
The record has not been filed with the court. Because th e reporter’s record has not been filed timely, we issue the following order.

We order Myrna Hargis , the official court reporter, to file the record in this appeal within 30 days of the date of this order

. PER CURIAM
F OR P UB L I CAT I ON U N I TED STA TES C O U R T O F A PPEA LS F O R T H E N IN T H C IR C U IT UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME RI CA , P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. MARC E L DA RO N K I NG , D e f

e n d an t - A p p e llan t. N o. 11- 10182 D . C . N o. 3: 10 -c r- 00 45 5-W H A -1 O R D ER

KOZ I NS KI , C hi ef

Judg e: U po n the vo t e of am aj ori ty of non re cuse d act i ve j ud ges, i ti s order ed that thi s c as e be r eheard en banc pu rs uantt o C i rc ui tR ul e 35-3. T he three -j ud ge panel o p in io n s h a ll n o t b e c ite da s p r e c e d e n t b yo rto an yc o u rt o f th e N in th C ir c u it. Judg e N gu ye n d i d n otpart i cipat e i n the del i berat i on s or vot e i n thi s c as e. 

# FI LED MA Y24 2 012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
#### CITY OF MIAMI, a municipal corporation of the State of Florida, and R. DeCerce, Petitioner, v. Richard Earl CROUCH, Respondent.

No. 43848.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 10, 1973.

Certiorari denied. 277 So.2d 603.

ERVIN, Acting C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1


                                  SUBSIDIARIES
                                       OF
                                 DATASCOPE CORP.

         The following table lists, as of June 30, 2001, the direct and indirect
subsidiaries of Datascope Corp., the jurisdiction of organization and the
percentage of voting securities owned by the immediate parent of each
subsidiary:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                      Where                     % of
                                                      Incorporated              Voting Stock
<S>                                                   <C>                       <C>
         Datascope FSC, Ltd.                          Barbados                  100

         Datascope Investment Corp.                   New Jersey                100

         Datascope B.V.                               Netherlands               100
                  Datascope Medical Co. Ltd.          United Kingdom            100
                  Datascope S.A.R.L.                  France                    100
                  Datascope GmbH                      Germany                   100
                  InterVascular S.A.S.                France                    100
                  Datascope S.L.                      Spain                     100
                  Datascope Interventional GmbH       Germany                   100
                           Qualimed GmbH              Germany                    30
                           AMG GmbH                   Germany                    30

         Bioplex Corp.                                Delaware                  100
                  Bioplex Medical B.V.                Netherlands               100

         Datascope Biomaterials Research B.V.         Netherlands               100

         Genisphere Inc.                              Delaware                   83

         InterVascular, Inc.                          Delaware                  100
                  InterVascular S.A.R.L.              France                    100
                  InterVascular GmbH                  Germany                   100
                  Datascope Italia s.r.l.             Italy                     100
                  Datascope S.p.r.l.                  Belgium                   100
                  Datascope Trademark Corp.           Delaware                  100
</TABLE>
1Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 96-50859

Summary Calendar

CHARLES CADDELL, Individually 

and on behalf of his mother, Mildred Caddell,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

WAL-MART STORES, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

(MO-96-CV-82)

April 9, 1998

Before DUHÉ, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:1

Charles Caddell had a shirt taken off his back in an Odessa

Wal-Mart store when he was detained as a shoplifting suspect. He

appeals from a jury verdict that found Wal-Mart was not liable for

conversion of the shirt. He also appeals the district court’s

grant of a partial summary judgment dismissing his claims on behalf

of his deceased mother under the theories of negligent infliction

of emotional distress and bystander recovery and the denial of his

motion for a new trial based upon jury misconduct and newly
2

discovered evidence. 

We have carefully reviewed the record and considered the

briefs of the parties. There was sufficient evidence presented

that a reasonable juror could find that the Baja shirt alleged to

have been shoplifted was not owned by Caddell and thus was not

converted by Wal-Mart. See Pagan v. Shoney’s, Inc., 931 F.2d 334,

337 (5th Cir. 1991).

Further, the district court did not err in dismissing claims

brought on behalf of Mildred Caddell. Texas law does not recognize

negligent infliction of emotional distress as a cause of action.

Nor did the court err in finding that no dispute of material fact

existed that she did not witness a serious or fatal accident and in

dismissing her bystander recovery claim. 

Whether a new trial should be granted because of alleged jury

misconduct is left to the sound discretion of the trial court and

must be decided on an ad hoc basis. Vezina v. Theriot Marine

Service, Inc., 554 F.2d 654 (5th Cir. 1977). In a review of the

hearing conducted on the motion for a new trial, we find no abuse

of discretion in the denial of that motion.

Accordingly, the decisions of the district court are AFFIRMED.
# C_2014048EN.01000101.xml

| 20.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.7114 — JLL/DSM/JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2014/C 48/01)

On 4 February 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 (1). 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:

1

| — | 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 32014M7114. 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 32014M7114. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
#### STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Burl Stanley HARRIS, Appellee.

No. 72-1190.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Jan. 23, 1973.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Broward County; Thomas J. Reddick.

Appeal dismissed.
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 02512**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name Description**  02512\02512_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist 02512\02512_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted x 02512\02512_PartA.xls Plant submitted survey file x 02512\02512_PartE.xls Plant submitted survey file x 02512\02512_PartH.xls Plant submitted survey file x 02512\02512_PlantID_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

02512\Certification Statement Plant ID 02512.pdf Plant certification statement 02512\Supporting Documentation\02512_Redhawk_02512_A5_Q2_Maps_1and2.ppt Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 02512\Supporting Documentation\02512_Redhawk_02512_A5_Q3_WaterBalanceDiagram.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey



### x 02512\Supporting Documentation\REDHAWK_02512_A11_6_Algae Wastewater Analysis.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 02512\Supporting Documentation\02512_ICR CoverLetter.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

2Copyright documents are available from the docket. 1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database
.
**Exhibit 23**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

The Board of Directors 

Con-way Inc.: 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in theregistration statements (Nos. 333-48733, 333-92399, 333-36180, 333-54558, 333-102749, 333-104803, 333-124343 and 333-133546 on Form S-8 and No. 333-56667 and 333-148234 on Form S-3) of Con-way Inc. of our report dated February 27, 2008,with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Con-way Inc. and subsidiaries (the Company) as of December 31, 2007 and 2006, and the related consolidated statements of income, shareholders’ equity and cash flows for each of the yearsin the three-year period ended December 31, 2007 and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2007, which report appears in the December 31, 2007 annual report on Form 10-K of Con-way Inc.

Con-way acquired CFI on August 23, 2007, Cougar Logistics on September 5, 2007 and Chic Logistics on October 18, 2007 (the Acquisitions)and management excluded the Acquisitions from its assessment of the effectiveness of Con-way’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2007. The Acquisitions represent 34.7% of Con-way’s total assets and 4.3% ofCon-way’s revenues as reported in the consolidated financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2007. Our audit of internal control over financial reporting of Con-way Inc. also excluded an evaluation of the internal control overfinancial reporting of the Acquisitions. 

As discussed in Note 11 to the consolidated financial statements, the Company adopted the recognition anddisclosure provisions as of December 31, 2006 and adopted measurement date provisions as of January 1, 2007 of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 158, *Employers’ Accounting for Defined Benefit Pension and OtherPostretirement Plans*. 

/s/ KPMG LLP 

Portland, Oregon 

February 27, 2008
1

Werner, Christopher

From: Werner, Christopher

Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2016 4:18 PM

To: 'Szabo, Aaron'; Lorang, Phil; Beaver, Melinda

Subject: RE: Summary of Interagency Comments under EO12866 and 13563: EPA NPRM -- 

Protection of Visibility: Amendments to Requirements for State Plans (RIN 2060-AS55)

Follow Up Flag: Follow up

Flag Status: Completed

Categories: Regional Haze

Aaron, EPA proposes the following language in place of the language highlighted by reviewers on page 38. Please advise 

if this will be acceptable. EPA consents to all other changes in the document. 

“We are proposing these changes to make clear the connections between the existing long-strategy and reasonable 

progress goal requirements. Although the regional haze SIPs submitted by the States during the first planning period 

generally demonstrated a clear understanding of the connections between these two program elements, recent 

comments by some owners of industrial sources and States have indicated confusion as to the meaning of these 

provisions.” 

Chris Werner 

US EPA – Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

Air Quality Policy Division 

(919) 541-5133 

werner.christopher@epa.gov

From: Szabo, Aaron [mailto:Aaron_L_Szabo@omb.eop.gov] 

Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2016 2:44 PM 

To: Werner, Christopher <Werner.Christopher@epa.gov>; Lorang, Phil <Lorang.Phil@epa.gov>; Beaver, Melinda

<Beaver.Melinda@epa.gov> 

Subject: Summary of Interagency Comments under EO12866 and 13563: EPA NPRM -- Protection of Visibility: 

Amendments to Requirements for State Plans (RIN 2060-AS55) 

Attached please find additional summary of interagency comments under EO 12866 and 13563 for the draft proposed 

rule entitled, Protection of Visibility: Amendments to Requirements for State Plans (RIN 2060-AS55). The interagency 

comments are in response to the last RLSO version submitted to OMB for review. I accepted all changes from that 

version and the interagency comments within this version are new. 

 

Thank you and please let me know if you have any comments or questions. 

 

Aaron L. Szabo 

Policy Analyst 

Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

Office of Management and Budget 

202-395-3621 

Aaron_L_Szabo@omb.eop.gov
#### HIRTS, INC., a Florida corporation, et al., Appellants, v. STRICK CORPORATION, a Pennsylvania corporation, Appellee.

No. 73-570.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 30, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
Net 1 UEPS Technologies, Inc.: Exhibit 10.49 - Filed by newsfilecorp.com






Exhibit 10.49 

AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO STOCK PURCHASE AGREEMENT 

Amendment No. 2 dated November
16, 2016 (this “Amendment”) to Stock Purchase Agreement, dated as of October 5,
2016 and as amended on November 3, 2016 (the “Agreement”), by and between
Net 1 UEPS Technologies, Inc., a Florida corporation (the “Company”) and
Draper Gain Investments Ltd., a company organized under the laws of England and
Wales (“Purchaser”). 

WHEREAS, the Company and
Purchaser desire to further amend the Agreement to change the date of
closing. 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration
of the covenants and agreements set forth herein, the Company and Purchaser
hereby agree as follows: 

1.
         
Change of Date of Closing. Section 2 of the Agreement
is hereby amended to provide that the date of Closing (as defined in the
Agreement) shall occur on the earlier of (i) a date to be specified by the
Company in writing to Purchaser which date shall be no earlier than January 23,
2017, and no later than February 28, 2017; provided however, that such date must
be at least five business days after such notice is delivered; and (ii) a date
to be specified by the Purchaser in writing to the Company which date shall be
no earlier than January 23, 2017, and no later than February 28, 2017; provided
however, that such date must be at least five business days after such notice is
delivered.

2.
         
No Further Changes. Except as amended hereby, the
terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain unchanged 

3.
         
Governing Law. This Amendment shall be governed by
and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of New York. 

4.
         
Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed in any
number of counterparts, each of which when so executed and delivered shall be
deemed to be an original and all of which together shall be deemed to be one and
the same agreement. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this
Amendment on the date first written above. 

NET 1 UEPS TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 
By: /s/ Serge C.P. Belamant

Serge C.P. Belamant 
Chief Executive Officer 

Draper Gain Investments Ltd. 
By: /s/ Peter Gain 
Peter
Gain 
Chairman
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2941

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide that the special

rules applicable to livestock sold on account of drought will also apply

in the case of other natural disasters including excessive moisture.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

AUGUST 6, 1993

Mr. GLICKMAN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide

that the special rules applicable to livestock sold on account of drought will also apply in the case of other

natural disasters including excessive moisture.

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

3 SECTION 1. TREATMENT OF LIVESTOCK SOLD ON ACCOUNT

4 OF EXCESSIVE MOISTURE.

5 (a) GENERAL RULE.—Paragraph (1) of section

6 451(e) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amend7 ed—
2

•HR 2941 IH

1 (1) by striking ‘‘for drought conditions’’ and in2 serting ‘‘for drought conditions or another natural

3 disaster (including excessive moisture)’’, and

4 (2) by striking ‘‘these drought conditions’’ and

5 inserting ‘‘such drought conditions or disaster’’.

6 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The subsection head7 ing for subsection (e) of section 451 of such Code is

8 amended by striking ‘‘DROUGHT’’ and inserting

9 ‘‘DROUGHT OR OTHER NATURAL DISASTERS’’.

10 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

11 this section shall apply to sales or exchanges occurring

12 after December 31, 1992.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000949485
<NAME>                        CORZON, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                         DEC-26-2000
<PERIOD-END>                           OCT-01-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                            1
<CASH>                                     192,036
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                              126,970
<ALLOWANCES>                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           512,685
<PP&E>                                      45,130
<DEPRECIATION>                                   0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             565,135
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                    4,120,000
<BONDS>                                  4,553,652
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                              1,207,296
<COMMON>                                   718,128
<OTHER-SE>                              (10,178,997)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               565,135
<SALES>                                     90,970
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            90,970
<CGS>                                       99,290
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              711,582
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       1,586,179
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         (2,309,081)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     (2,306,081)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            197,000
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                            (2,109,081)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (0.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                (0.03)





</TABLE>
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________

No. 02-23-00324-CV

___________________________

On Appeal from the 342nd District Court

Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No. 342-332546-22

Before Sudderth, C.J.; Kerr and Walker, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Walker

PHILIP HEARL THOMPSON HAMILTON, Appellant

V.

JOHN JENSEN, JENSEN & JENSEN, P.C., DONALD C. NEMEC, KRISTINA 

WHITTENBURG, AND LAW OFFICE OF K.R. WHITTENBURG P.L.L.C., 

Appellees
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Philip Hearl Thompson Hamilton attempts to appeal from the trial 

court’s orders granting summary judgment that dismissed Hamilton’s claims against

Appellees John Jensen, Jensen & Jensen, P.C., Kristina Whittenburg, and Law Office 

of K.R. Whittenburg, P.L.L.C. On October 9, 2023, we notified the parties of our 

concern that we may not have jurisdiction over this appeal because the trial court’s 

orders do not appear to be a final judgment or appealable interlocutory orders. We 

informed them that unless any party desiring to continue the appeal filed a response

with the court on or before October 19, 2023, showing grounds for continuing the 

appeal, we might dismiss it for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a). We 

received no response.

We have jurisdiction to consider appeals only from final judgments and from 

certain interlocutory orders made immediately appealable by statute. See Lehmann v. 

Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001) (stating that “the general rule, with a 

few mostly statutory exceptions, is that an appeal may be taken only from a final 

judgment”); see also Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a) (delineating

interlocutory orders from which a party may appeal). Unless a statutory exception 

applies, an order that does not dispose of all pending parties and claims remains 

interlocutory and unappealable until the trial court signs a final judgment. See 

Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 195; City of Blue Mound v. Sw. Water Co., No. 02-13-00255-CV, 

2013 WL 4679953, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Aug. 29, 2013, no pet.).
3

Here, the trial court’s orders granting summary judgment are not final and 

appealable because they do not dispose of the claims pending against Appellee 

Donald C. Nemec, and no statutory exception applies to allow for an interlocutory 

appeal in this case. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See

Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f).

/s/ Brian Walker

Brian Walker

Justice

Delivered: December 14, 2023
# CA2014041EN.01000101.xml

| 12.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CA 41/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CA 41/1

---

RESERVE LIST
   (1)

RESERVE LIST

1

OPEN COMPETITION

OPEN COMPETITION

EPSO/AD/178/10 — ADMINISTRATORS (AD 5)

ADMINISTRATORS

LIBRARIANSHIP/INFORMATION SCIENCE

LIBRARIANSHIP/INFORMATION SCIENCE

(2014/C 41 A/01)

| AZEVEDO | Filipa |
| --- | --- |
| FILIP | Cristina Laura |
| MICHAILIDIS | Ionas |
| PEREZ MARQUEZ | Concepcion Gema |
| PETRAS | Georgios |
| PETROWSKI (ZIMMERMANN) | Andrea |
| RODRIGUEZ BIELSA | Eva |

AZEVEDO

Filipa

FILIP

Cristina Laura

MICHAILIDIS

Ionas

PEREZ MARQUEZ

Concepcion Gema

PETRAS

Georgios

PETROWSKI (ZIMMERMANN)

Andrea

RODRIGUEZ BIELSA

Eva

The reserve list will be valid until 21 December 2016.

21 December 2016

---

(1)  A successful candidate may explicitly request her/his name not be published.

1

---
#### STOCKTON, WHATLEY, DAVIN & COMPANY, Appellant, v. KINGFISH BAR & RESTAURANT, INC., Appellee, and Home Indemnity Company, Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

No. 71-581.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 9, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.