alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2018204EN.01022001.xml

| 13.6.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 204/220 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.6.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 204/220

---

P8_TA(2016)0340

Tripartite Social Summit for Growth and Employment ***

European Parliament legislative resolution of 14 September 2016 on the draft Council decision on the Tripartite Social Summit for Growth and Employment and repealing Decision 2003/174/EC (05820/2014 — C8-0164/2016 — 2013/0361(APP))

(Special legislative procedure — consent)

(2018/C 204/35)

The European Parliament,

The European Parliament

| — | having regard to the draft Council decision (05820/2014), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the draft Council decision (05820/2014),

| — | having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 352(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C8-0164/2016), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 352(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C8-0164/2016),

| — | having regard to its interim resolution of 15 April 2014 on the proposal for a Council decision on a Tripartite Social Summit for Growth and Employment (1), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to its interim resolution of 15 April 2014 on the proposal for a Council decision on a Tripartite Social Summit for Growth and Employment (1),

1

| — | having regard to Rule 99(1), first and third subparagraphs, of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rule 99(1), first and third subparagraphs, of its Rules of Procedure,

| — | having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs (A8-0252/2016), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs (A8-0252/2016),

| 1. | Gives its consent to the draft Council decision; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Gives its consent to the draft Council decision;

| 2. | Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments.

---

(1)  Texts adopted, P7_TA(2014)0377.

1

---
# C_2015082EN.01000401.xml

| 10.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 82/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 82/4

---

Notice of the impending expiry of certain countervailing measures

(2015/C 82/05)

1.   As provided for in Article 18(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 of 11 June 2009 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Community (1), the European Commission gives notice that, unless a review is initiated in accordance with the following procedure, the countervailing measures mentioned below will expire on the date mentioned in the table below.

1

2.   Procedure

Procedure

Union producers may lodge a written request for a review. This request must contain sufficient evidence that the expiry of the measures would be likely to result in a continuation or recurrence of subsidisation and injury.

Should the Commission decide to review the measures concerned, importers, exporters, representatives of the exporting country and Union producers will then be provided with the opportunity to amplify, rebut or comment on the matters set out in the review request.

3.   Time limit

Time limit

Union producers may submit a written request for a review on the above basis, to reach the European Commission, Directorate-General for Trade (Unit H-1), CHAR 4/39, 1000 Brussels, Belgium (2) at any time from the date of the publication of the present notice but no later than three months before the date mentioned in the table below.

2

4.   This notice is published in accordance with Article 18(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 of 11 June 2009.

| Product | Country(ies) of origin or exportation | Measures | Reference | Date of expiry (3) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Certain graphite electrode systems | India | Countervailing duty | Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1185/2010 imposing definitive countervailing duty on imports of certain graphite electrode systems originating in India (OJ L 332, 16.12.2010, p. 1). | 17.12.2015 |

Product

Country(ies) of origin or exportation

Measures

Reference

Date of expiry (3)

3

Certain graphite electrode systems

India

Countervailing duty

Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1185/2010 imposing definitive countervailing duty on imports of certain graphite electrode systems originating in India (OJ L 332, 16.12.2010, p. 1).

17.12.2015

---

(1)  OJ L 188, 18.7.2009, p. 93.

1

(2)  Fax +32 22956505.

2

(3)  The measure expires at midnight of the day mentioned in this column.

3

---
#### Charity ROBINSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. J-17.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. First District.

Nov. 21, 1967.

A. K. Black, Lake City, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and David U. Tumin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This cause having been orally argued before the court, the briefs and record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment of the lower court hereby appealed is affirmed.

WIGGINTON, C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD K., and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.
252 La. 836

#### ARKLA INDUSTRIES, INC. v. James H. HOAG.

No. 49362.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 3, 1968.

In re: James H. Hoag applying for cer-tiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Parish of Caddo. 210 So.2d 594.

Writ refused. There is no error of law in the judgment.

SUMMERS, Justice,

dissents from the refusal to grant writs. I am of the opinion that R.S. 33:3306 requires recordation of the ordinance imposing the special assessment before a lien and privilege, or encumbrance, operates against the property. Nothing less will answer the purpose of proving the debt and establishing the privilege. Etta Contracting Co. v. Bruning, 134 La. 48, 63 So. 619 (1913).
#### Armando Bermudez BOSCH, a/k/a Armando Bermudez, Appellant, v. Justo Rafael ALONSO, Appellee.

No. 71-216.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 26, 1971.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 23, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 21

                             LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES OF


                  - GSBC Ohio Corporation, an Ohio Corporation

                  - Louis Harris & Associates, a New York Corporation
#### Robert Logan MORLEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. HH-230.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Oct. 3, 1978.

*1014Michael J. Minerva, Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., A. S. Johnston, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a conviction and sentence for resisting an officer without violence and attempted battery upon a law enforcement officer.

Robert -Logan Morley was initially arrested for fighting, a misdemeanor that was not committed in the presence of a law enforcement officer. That arrest was improper. Section 901.15, Florida Statutes (1977). In fact, it was later determined that Morley was not involved in the fight. In the course of the arrest Morley resisted. He was charged with resisting arrest with violence and was found guilty of resisting arrest without violence.

 In Florida, the common law right to resist an illegal arrest *with*force has been abrogated by statute Section 776.051, Florida Statutes (1977). Thus, legality of the arrest is not a factor in that situation. There has been no statutory change, however, to the right to resist an illegal arrest *without*force. *Marshall v. State,*354 So.2d 107 (Fla. 2d D.C.A. 1978); *Lowery v. State,*356 So.2d 1325 (Fla. 4th D.C.A. 1975). Thus, we think the conviction for resisting arrest without violence must be reversed.

The conviction for attempted battery of a law enforcement officer while in the lawful performance of his duty is affirmed. The incident giving rise to that charge took place at the police station while the officers were investigating the fight that had taken place earlier. We believe that the investigation constituted the lawful performance of a legal duty.

The conviction and sentence for resisting an officer without violence is reversed. The conviction and sentence for attempted battery on a law enforcement officer is affirmed.

McCORD, C. J., and BOYER and MILLS, JJ., concur.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED MARCH 3, 2023

NO. 03

- 22

- 00783

- CV

Phillip G. Scott , Appellant

v.

District Courts of Comal County, Texas , Appellee s

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURTS OF COMAL COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICE S BAKER, KELLY, AND SMITH

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE BAKER

This is an appeal from the district courts of Comal C ounty, Texas. Having reviewed the record

,

it appears that the C ourt lacks jurisdiction over the appeal

. Therefore, the C ourt dismisses the

appeal for want of jurisdiction

. Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no

adjudicatio n of costs is made.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-12-00407-CV

RUSSELL EQUESTRIAN CENTER, INC., John William Russell, Individually and d/b/a 

Russell Equestrian Center, and Shane Brashar Russell,

Appellants

v.

Samantha MILLER a/k/a Samantha Parker,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 2, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 358456

Honorable Irene Rios, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE ANGELINI, JUSTICE MARION, AND JUSTICE ALVAREZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the portion of the trial court’s 

judgment as to negligence is AFFIRMED. We REVERSE the gross negligence portion of the 

trial court’s judgment and RENDER judgment that Miller take nothing on her gross negligence 

claim. We AFFIRM the remainder of the judgment. We tax costs of this appeal against the 

party that incurred them. 

SIGNED June 5, 2013.

_____________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
#### Roger Lee LAFLEUR v. BOYCE MACHINERY CORPORATION.

No. 54040.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 9, 1973.

In re: Roger Lee Lafleur and Percy Fontenot applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of St. Mary, 282 So.2d 819.

It is ordered that the writ of review issue; that the Court of Appeal send up the record in duplicate of the case; and that counsel for plaintiff and defendant be notified.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3695 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3695

   To establish requirements relating to the issuance and review of 
                    regulations by Federal agencies.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 22, 1993

Mr. Smith of Texas (for himself, Mr. Kasich, Mr. Cox, and Mr. Franks of 
 New Jersey) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To establish requirements relating to the issuance and review of 
                    regulations by Federal agencies.

    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 ``Federal Regulation Cost-Benefit 
Assessment Act of 1993''.

SEC. 2. ESTABLISHMENT OF REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO THE ISSUANCE AND 
              REVIEW OF REGULATIONS BY FEDERAL AGENCIES.

    (a) In General.--Except as otherwise provided in this section, 
Executive Order 12291 of February 17, 1981, as in effect on that date 
(in this Act referred to as the ``Order''), shall apply to each agency 
(as that term is defined in the Order).
    (b) Exceptions.--In the application of the Order--
            (1) ``rules in effect on the date of the enactment of the 
        Federal Regulation Cost-Benefit Assessment Act of 1993'' shall 
        be substituted for ``currently effective rules''; and
            (2) ``the date of the enactment of the Federal Regulation 
        Cost-Benefit Assessment Act of 1993'' shall be substituted for 
        ``the date of this Order''.

                                 <all>
```
EX-10(mmm)



 Exhibit 10(mmm) 
  

					
	



	 		  	 Alcoa Inc.
  

390 Park Avenue
 New York
NY 10022 – 4608 USA
 Tel: 1 212 836 2600

Fax: 1 212 836 2809


 October 4, 2013 

PERSONAL & CONFIDENTIAL 
 Graeme Bottger 

Hand Delivered 
 Dear Graeme, 

As a follow up to our discussions concerning your employment, and in light of your role as a valued member of our management team, I am writing to offer you a
special retention arrangement. 
 We mutually agree that in exchange for your continued employment through December 31, 2014, and your agreement to
enter into the attached Non-Competition Agreement, the Company will make the following payments in respect of your Australian pension plan tax liability: 

1. Before October 30, 2013, Alcoa will reimburse you for the tax liability for non-expatriate plan accruals for tax years 2009 through
2012. We estimate this tax liability to be approximately $310,000, which grossed up to avoid any additional tax liability is approximately $520,000. 

2. Each year, beginning with your 2013 US tax filings, Alcoa will take into account the increase in your non-expatriate plan accruals and will
reimburse you for this additional tax liability (including gross up) when due. 
 3. At the time you repatriate to Australia, an exit tax
will be payable to the U.S. for your plan accruals for the period from 1999 through 2008. Alcoa will reimburse you for this tax liability estimated to be $380,000, which grossed up to avoid any adverse tax consequences to you is approximately
$700,000. 
 The Company will provide the foregoing payments, upon you providing the Company with evidence of your payment (gross up will be calculated
based on actual tax payments). To the extent you terminate your employment prior to December 31, 2014, except as provided in this agreement, the Company will not provide further payments described above, and you will be obligated to reimburse
the Company for any previous payments made on your behalf. 
 As part of this agreement, and specifically in consideration of the foregoing payments, your
continued employment and retention period, you agree to the terms contained within the attached Non-Competition Agreement. 
 The foregoing payments will
not be treated as compensation for any purpose under any compensation or benefit plan or program of the Company. 








 Graeme Bottger 

 Page
 2
 
  

 The terms of this agreement can be revised in writing by mutual agreement between you and Alcoa. 

We are very pleased to be able to make this offer to you and we hope you will give it favorable consideration. Please indicate your acceptance by signing on
the space indicated below and returning one original to me. 
  

			
	Sincerely,
	
	Alcoa Inc.
		
	By	 	 /s/ William F. Oplinger

		 	William F. Oplinger, Executive Vice President & Chief Financial Officer

 Agreed to and accepted this 8th day of OCTOBER, 2013 

 

			
	By	 	 /s/ Graeme Bottger

		 	Graeme Bottger

  

	Cc:	Mike Barriere, Executive Vice President Human Resources
#### Robert Lee BYRD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-1025.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

July 9, 1973.

Cause transferred to Supreme Court.
AVS

Quality Management

System

Title: Domestic New Action Worksheet with 58

QPM#

AIR-ANM-Q30-F7

Date: December 17, 2008

1

Record of Contacts

FDMS Docket No. FAA.-2olO •••05qq

With whom outside the FAA has this proposal been discussed (e.g., ATA, RAA, ALPA, etc.)?

OrganizaJioD Pfi<:rson,Contacted Date I

ATA Mr. Mark Lopez April 29, 2010

Boeing Mr. Bill Kummer April 14, 20]0

UNCONTROllED COPY WHEN DOWNLOADED

Check the Master Lislto Verify That This is the Correct Revision Before Use
### IN THE UNITED STATES C O URT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________ No. 16

- 50151

__________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

− Appellee ,

v ersus
FLORENCIO ROSALES

- MIRELES, A lso K nown as Roberto Lozano

- Alcauter,

Defendant

− Appellant

.

_______________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas

_______________________

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Before SMITH, CLEMENT, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:

Florencio Rosales

- Mireles pleaded guilty of illegal reentry into the
United States and was convicted and sentenced. The sentence was based in part on unobjected

- to error. On appeal, this court declined to exercise United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED August 10, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 16-50151 Document: 00514594435 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/10/2018No. 16

- 50151

2 discretion to afford plain

- error relief and affirmed

. United States v. Rosales

Mireles , 850 F.3d 246 (5th Cir. 2017). The Supreme Court reversed and
remanded

. Rosales

- Mireles v. Un ited States , 138 S. Ct. 1897 (2018).
On remand, the United States and the Federal Public Defender filed a joint motion to vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing. Although we are not bound even by a joint motion, we agree that the request is appr opriate. The motion is GRANTED. The judgment of sentence is VACATED and REMANDED for resentencing. Case: 16-50151 Document: 00514594435 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/10/2018
HYDRON TECHNOLOGIES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

        Exhibit (11) - Statement Re: Computation of Earnings Per Share


                                                Years Ended December 31, 
                                     ------------------------------------------
                                         1995          1994           1993
                                     ------------   ------------   ------------

PRIMARY
Average shares outstanding             22,632,180     22,077,710     19,917,586
Net effect of dilutive stock
options - based on the
treasury stock method using
average market price                      506,485        589,260
                                     ------------   ------------   ------------

Totals                                 23,138,665     22,666,970     19,917,586
                                     ============   ============   ============

Net income                           $  1,782,588   $  3,638,206   $ (1,361,085)
                                     ============   ============   ============

Per share amount                     $       0.08   $       0.16   $      (0.07)
                                     ============   ============   ============

FULLY DILUTED
Average shares outstanding             22,632,180     22,077,710     19,917,586
Net effect of dilutive stock
options - based on the
treasury stock method using
year-end market price                     519,203        825,044
                                     ------------   ------------   ------------

Totals                                 23,151,383     22,902,754     19,917,586
                                     ============   ============   ============

Net income                           $  1,782,588   $  3,638,206   $ (1,361,085)
                                     ============   ============   ============

Per share amount                     $       0.08   $       0.16   $      (0.07)
                                     ============   ============   ============
### MEMORANDUM TO FILE TO: Docket No. EPA-R09-OAR- 2013-0009; Approval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Navajo Nation; Regional Haze Require ments for Navajo Generating Station; Proposed Rule FROM: Anita Lee Date: March 11, 2013 Subject: Record of Meeting with Maricopa Stanfield Irrigation District during Public Comment Period 1. Participants at Meeting  Janet McCabe, EPA  Tamara Saltman, EPA  Phil Lorang, EPA  Anita Lee, EPA  Grant Ward, MSID  Paul Orme, MSID  Dan Thelander, MSID  Siebe Honstra, MSID  Monte Ward, MSID 2. Date and Location of Meeting:  March 11, 2013, Washington, DC 3. General Statement of the Topic of Discussion:  Expressed concerns about statements in EPA’ s TSD – page 80-82 and concerns about Energy Strategies Report page 79. 4. Copy of Any Materials Presente d or Received (MSID stated they would email materials to EPA Region 9 following the meeting – as of 4/2/13, Re gion 9 has not received materials from MSID):  Analysis of proposed rule on NIA  MSID water use history 2003 – 2012
<PAGE>

                       [LETTERHEAD OF UBS WARBURG LLC]


                                                                   Exhibit 99.7



The Board of Directors
Radiologix, Inc.
3600 Chase Tower
2200 Ross Avenue
Dallas, Texas 75201

Members of the Board of Directors:

UBS Warburg LLC ("UBS Warburg") hereby consents to the inclusion of the
opinion letter of UBS Warburg dated August 22, 2000 as Appendix B to, and to
the reference thereto under the captions "SUMMARY - Opinion of UBS Warburg
LLC" and "BACKGROUND OF THE MERGER - Opinion of UBS Warburg LLC" in, the
Proxy Statement/Prospectus of Radiologix, Inc. ("Radiologix") relating to the
proposed merger transaction involving Radiologix and Saunders Karp & Megrue.
In giving such consent, we do not admit that we come within the category of
persons whose consent is required under, and we do not admit that we are
"experts" for purposes of, the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and the
rules and regulations promulgated thereunder.

                                  By: /s/ UBS WARBURG LLC
                                      --------------------------------
                                      UBS WARBURG LLC



New York, New York
September 14, 2000
#### M. A. STEINHARDT v. STATE.

No. 37035.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 1968.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 205 So.2d 30.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

DAVID BRASHER,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

Nos. 4D14-3031 and 4D14-4137

[March 18, 2015]

Consolidated appeal of orders denying rule 3.800 and 3.850 motions 

from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward 

County; Matthew I. Destry, Judge; L.T. Case No. 12-15569CF10A.

David Brasher, Fort Lauderdale, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed without prejudice to appellant filing a sworn and legally 

sufficient motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.801. See

Mathis v. State, 139 So. 3d 988 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014); Casteel v. State, 141

So. 3d 624 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014). Thereafter, appellant can revisit the 

legality of his sentence. See, e.g., McLeod v. State, 58 So. 3d 931 (Fla. 5th 

DCA 2011); Lawson v. State, 46 So. 3d 1189, 1190 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010).

WARNER, TAYLOR and MAY, JJ, concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.