alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Petition Granted and Order filed May 1 1 , 2021

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01 - 21 - 00076 - CV

——————————— TRIPLE P.G. SAND DEVELOPMENT, LLC , ET AL . , A ppella nt s V. EDUARDO DEL PINO, ET AL . , Appell e e s On Appeal fro m the 281st District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Ca se No. 2020 - 08901

ORDER GRANTING PET ITION FOR PERMISSIVE INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL Appellant s filed an unopposed petition for permissive interlocutory appeal, 1 seeking t o challenge the trial cour t ’s denial of a mo tion t o di sm iss pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Pro cedure 91a. T o be entitled to a permissiv e interloc utory

1 See T EX . C IV . P RAC . & R EM . C ODE A NN . § 51.014( d) , (f) ; T EX . R

. A PP . P. 28.3.2

appea l from an interlocutory order that is not otherwise appealable, the petitioner must establish that (1) the orde r appealed in volves “a controlling question of law as to which th ere is a substantial ground for differe nce of opinion, and (2) immediate appeal from the order “may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.” T EX . C IV . P RAC . & R EM . C OD E A NN . § 51.0 14(d); T EX . R. A P P . P. 28.3(e)(4)

. The petition is gran ted. The notice of appeal is deemed to have been filed as of the date of this order. T EX . R. A PP . P. 28.3(k). This appeal is governed by the rules for accelerated appeals. Id. The C lerk of this C ourt shall file a copy of this order with the trial cour t clerk. I d. The motion for expedited ruling on the unopposed petition for permissive in terlocutory appeal is dismissed as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief J ustice Radack and Justices Landau and Countiss.
Exhibit


                                    




Exhibit 10.48    


[Letterhead of The Coca-Cola Company]
COCA-COLA PLAZA
ATLANTA, GEORGIA


	
			
	ALEXANDER B. CUMMINGS
	 
	ADDRESS REPLY TO:

	EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT AND 
	 
	PO BOX 1734

	CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
	 
	ATLANTA, GA  30301

	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	404 676-6926

	 
	 
	FAX:  404 515-2411








 
October 14, 2015


Mr. Bernhard Goepelt
The Coca-Cola Company
Atlanta, Georgia


Dear Bernhard,


Under our standard program and policies related to expatriate employees, this letter informs you that you will be localizing to the United States effective January 1, 2016.


You will cease to be a participant in the International Service program at that time. In accordance with the terms of the localization policy, you will receive standard transition allowances under the program.


Localizing to the United States will not otherwise impact your compensation.  Should you have any questions, please contact Allison O’Sullivan at 404-676-8318 or via email at aosullivan@coca-cola.com.


As always, I thank you for your dedication to the Company.




Sincerely,


/s/ Alex Cummings
Order filed December 3, 2013.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 13

- 00637

- CV

____________ EDWARD MAYO , Appellant

V.

FIVE STAR MERCHANT S ERVICES, INC. , Appellee

On Appeal from the 11th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2011

- 26253



### CONTINUING ABATEMENT ORDER

On November 5 , 2013 , this court granted appellant’s agreed motion to abate
thi s appeal until November 26, 2013, so that the parties could continue settlement negotiations. On November 22, 2013, the parties filed a joint motion to continue the abatement period until December 23, 2013. We GRANT the motion.

The court ORDERS the abatement continued until December 23, 2013 . T he appellate deadlines in this case are suspended until the abatement period has ended

.2

If the parties are successful in their settlement negotiations, the court
ORDERS the parties to file a motion to dismiss the appeal, other dispositive motion, or a motion for additional time to file the dispositive motion, within ten days from the c onclusion of the abatement period. If no settlement agreement is reached, appellant shall file his brief at the end of the abatement period.
The appeal remains ABATED , treated as a closed case, and removed from this court’s active docket until December 23, 2013, at which time t he appeal will
be reinstated. The court will also consider an appropriate motion to reinstate the appeal filed by any party. Any party may also file a motion to dismiss the appeal or other dispositive motion at any time. Any party may also file a motion to extend the abatement period to finalize a settlement.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Jamison and Wise.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 22 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. CON. RES. 22

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That when the Senate recesses or adjourns on any day from Thursday, 
August 1, 2013, through Sunday, August 11, 2013, on a motion offered 
pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader or his 
designee, it stand recessed or adjourned until 12:00 noon on Monday, 
August 12, 2013, or such other time on that day as may be specified by 
its Majority Leader or his designee in the motion to recess or adjourn; 
and that when the Senate recesses or adjourns on Monday, August 12, 
2013, it stand adjourned until 12:00 noon on Monday, September 9, 2013, 
or such other time on that day as may be specified by its Majority 
Leader or his designee, or until the time of any reassembly pursuant to 
section 2 of this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first; and 
that when the House adjourns on any legislative day from Friday, August 
2, 2013, through Friday, September 6, 2013, on a motion offered 
pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader or his 
designee, it stand adjourned until 2:00 p.m. on Monday, September 9, 
2013, or until the time of any reassembly pursuant to section 2 of this 
concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first.
    Sec. 2.  The Majority Leader of the Senate and the Speaker of the 
House, or their respective designees, acting jointly after consultation 
with the Minority Leader of the Senate and the Minority Leader of the 
House, shall notify the Members of the Senate and House, respectively, 
to reassemble at such place and time as they may designate if, in their 
opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.

            Passed the Senate August 1, 2013.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
113th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                            S. CON. RES. 22

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Providing for a conditional adjournment or recess of the Senate and an 
              adjournment of the House of Representatives.
```
COURT OF A PPEAL S EI GHTH D I STRI CT OF TEX AS ELPASO, TEXAS

J OHN HE SS, Appellant,

v.
DONNA J OHNSON, Appellee

. § § § § § § No. 08-10-00217- CV

Appea l from
37th District Court
of B exar County , Texas (TC # 2006-CI -06893)

MEMORAN DUM OP INION Pending befor e the Court is Appellee Donna J ohn s o n ’s m o t i o n to dismiss for want of

prosec ution. W e g rant the motion and dismiss the appea l.
The trial court dismiss ed the underlying case for want of prosec ution on Dec ember 8, 2009.
On J anuar

y 11, 2010, Hess filed a motion for new trial which included notice of appea l. The trial

court subsequently overr

uled Hess’s motion for new trial. On J ul y 1 , 2 0 1 0 , the Four th Court of Appea ls reque sted that Hess pay the appellate filing fee in the amount of $175.00 and advised him
that the appea l could be dismiss ed if he failed to do so. On that same date, J ohnson filed her motion

to dismiss for want of prosec ution in the Four th Court of Appea ls on the g rounds that Hess had not paid t h e filing fee and he had not taken the steps require d to ensure that the cler k’s rec ord or
repor ter’s rec ord would be filed. See T E X .R.A P P .P. 34.6(b), 37.3(b), and 37.3(c)

. Hess did not pay 1
the filing fee or file any response to the motion to dismiss

. On J ul y 2 2 , 2 0 1 0 , this Court sent a

T h i s c a s e w a s t r a n s f

e r r e d f r o m t h e F o u r t h C o u r t o f A p p e a l s t o t h e E i g h t h C o u r t o f A p p e a l s p u r s u a n t t o a 1 d o c k e t e q u a l i z a t i o n o r d e r i s s u e d b y t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t o f T e x a s
. S e e T E X

. G O V ’ T C O D E A N N

. § 7 3

. 0 0 1 ( V e r n o n 2 0 0 5 )

.s ec o n d re q uest for the filing fee and war ned Hess that failure to pay the filing fee could resul t i n
dismiss al of the appeal. Hess did not pay the fil ing fee or ot herw ise commu n i ca t e with the C ourt
about the appea l. Fur

ther, Hess has done nothing to prosec ute the appea l since filing his motion for

new trial and notice of appeal

. Ac co rd i n gly , we dismiss the appea l pursuant to Texas Rules of Appellate Proc edure 5, 42.3(b), a nd 42.3(c)

.
September 29, 2010 ANN CRAWFORD McCL URE, J ustice

Be fore Chew, C.J ., McClure, a nd Rivera, JJ

.
exv4w2






EXHIBIT 4.2









 









 





EXHIBIT 4.2



TRANSFER




	 	 	 
	I
	 	(the Transferor) for the value received
	 	 	 
	DO HEREBY transfer to
	 	(the Transferee) the
	 	 	 
	 
	 	shares standing in my name in the





undertaking called CHARM COMMUNICATIONS INC.



To hold the same unto the Transferee




Dated



Signed by the Transferor



in the presence of:




	 	 	 
	 
	 	 
	Witness	 	 Transferor
#### The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff, *v.*John Saladak, Defendant.

County of Westchester,

December 3, 1958.

*Joseph F. Gagliardi, District Attorney (Arthur V. Praete*of counsel), for plaintiff.

*John Saladak,*defendant in person.

James D. Hopkins, J.

The defendant previously withdrew his petition in the nature of a writ of error *coram nobis,*but has now indicated that he desires to reinstate his application. In the interests of justice, the defendant’s petition will be entertained as originally presented.

The grounds of the defendant’s prayer is substantially that he was misled into pleading guilty to the crime of attempted grand larceny in the second degree, by the statement of his assigned counsel that he would receive a sentence of six months ’ imprisonment in the penitentiary. The defendant actually received an indeterminate sentence in Sing Sing Prison, the minimum of which was one and one-half years, and the maximum of which was two and one-half years. The defendant does not allege any promise by the District Attorney or by the court.

It is doubtful that the writ of *coram nobis*includes within its scope the claim of fraud or coercion in the making of a plea of guilty by statements or representations made by the defendant’s own counsel. The general theory of fraud or coercion is directed toward the acts of the court or the prosecution *(People*v. *Sadness,*300 N. Y. 69, 73; *Matter of Lyons*v. *Goldstein,*290 N. Y. 19, 25-26). To hold that inducements made by the defendant’s own counsel, which in many cases must of necessity border closely upon the giving of advice to an accused by counsel, *507should have the effect of official fraud would open the gates to a myriad of applications based on allegation which the prosecution and the court would be powerless to rebut or evaluate. Both the State courts *(People*v. *Wilkes,*136 N. Y. S. 2d 662) and the Federal courts *(Crowe*v. *United States,*175 F. 2d 799) have determined that such a claim provides no basis for a *coram nobis*application.

The records of the court, moveover, repel the defendant’s claim. The minutes of the proceedings taken at the time of the defendant’s plea of guilty, which are properly part of the record to be considered in light of the defendant’s application *(People*v. *Warnbrand,*278 App. Div. 956; *People*v. *Mogavero,*9 Misc 2d 197), demonstrate that the defendant was asked by both the Assistant District Attorney and the court whether any promises had been made to him with respect to his plea or the sentence to be imposed, and the defendant in each instance answered in the negative. Nor does it seem probable that the defendant’s assigned counsel, a respected and experienced member of the Bar, would make any representation to the defendant as to the sentence he would receive.

The application is denied. The District Attorney is directed to serve a copy of the order to be entered hereon with notice of entry upon the defendant.
#### In the Matter of Michael M., a Child Alleged to be Neglected. Denise M., Appellant; Little Flower Children’s Services, Respondent.

Final order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Sheldon Rand, J.), entered March 6, 1989, terminating respondent’s parental rights and awarding custody and guardianship of the child Michael M. to the New York City Commissioner of Social Services and petitioner for the purpose of adoption, which order followed a fact-finding determination on January 9, 1989 that respondent had permanently neglected her child, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The subject child was born addicted to cocaine on April 14, 1987. The child has resided in foster care since birth, having been placed with the pre-adoptive foster parents at the age of two months.

The credible evidence at the fact-finding hearing demonstrates that respondent permanently neglected her child and that petitioner used sufficient diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship (Social Services Law § 384-b [7] [a]; *Matter of Jamie M.,*63 NY2d 388, 390). Despite petitioner’s efforts to assist respondent in drug rehabilitation and to encourage visitation, respondent remained uncooperative and did not seriously address her drug problem or recognize her responsibility to visit the child. An agency "is not charged with a guarantee that the parent succeed in overcoming his or her predicaments. Indeed, an agency that has embarked on a diligent course but faces an utterly un-cooperative or indifferent parent should nevertheless be deemed to have fulfilled its duty” *(Matter of Sheila G.,*61 NY2d 368, 385). Petitioner properly aimed its diligent efforts at eliminat*153ing the root cause of respondent’s problems, her drug addiction *(see, Matter of Ronald YY.,*101 AD2d 895, 897). The record also sustained a finding that respondent failed to maintain suitable contact with or plan for the future of the child *(Matter of Star Leslie W.,*63 NY2d 136, 142-143).

Finally, the court properly determined that the best interests of the child required termination of parental rights to allow adoption by the foster parents *(Matter of Star Leslie W., supra).*Concur—Carro, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.
# Den Europæiske Unions C 262I/2021

| | ISSN 1977-0871 |
| --- | --- |
| Den Europæiske Unions
  Tidende | C 262I |
| | |
| Dansk udgave | Meddelelser og oplysninger | 64. årgang5. juli 2021 |

ISSN 1977-0871

Den Europæiske Unions

Tidende

C 262I

Dansk udgave

Meddelelser og oplysninger

64. årgang5. juli 2021

---

| Indhold | Side |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Oplysninger |
| | OPLYSNINGER FRA MEDLEMSSTATERNE |
| 2021/C 262 I/01 | Oplysninger fra medlemsstaterne om fiskestop | 1 |

Indhold

Side

IV   Oplysninger

OPLYSNINGER FRA MEDLEMSSTATERNE

2021/C 262 I/01

Oplysninger fra medlemsstaterne om fiskestop

1

---

| DA | |
| --- | --- |

DA

---

IV Oplysninger

OPLYSNINGER FRA MEDLEMSSTATERNE

| 5.7.2021 | DA | Den Europæiske Unions Tidende | CI 262/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.7.2021

DA

Den Europæiske Unions Tidende

CI 262/1

---

Oplysninger fra medlemsstaterne om fiskestop

(2021/C 262 I/01)

I overensstemmelse med artikel 35, stk. 3, i Rådets forordning (EF) nr. 1224/2009 af 20. november 2009 om oprettelse af en kontrolordning for Unionen med henblik på at sikre overholdelse af reglerne i den fælles fiskeripolitik (1) er der truffet beslutning om et fiskestop, jf. nedenstående skema:

| Dato og klokkeslæt for fiskestop | 3.6.2021 |
| --- | --- |
| Varighed | 3.6.2021-31.12.2021 |
| Medlemsstat | Frankrig |
| Bestand eller bestandsgruppe | ANF/8C3411 |
| Art | Havtaske ( Lophiidae ) |
| Område | 8c, 9 og 10 samt EU-farvande i CECAF 34.1.1 |
| Fiskerfartøjstype(r) | — |
| Referencenummer | 08/TQ92 |

Dato og klokkeslæt for fiskestop

3.6.2021

Varighed

3.6.2021-31.12.2021

Medlemsstat

Frankrig

Bestand eller bestandsgruppe

ANF/8C3411

Art

Havtaske ( Lophiidae )

Område

8c, 9 og 10 samt EU-farvande i CECAF 34.1.1

Fiskerfartøjstype(r)

—

Referencenummer

08/TQ92

---

(1)  EUT L 343 af 22.12.2009, s. 1.

---
IIA 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. J. RES. 30 

To disapprove a rule of the Environmental Protection Agency relating to 

greenhouse gas emissions from electric utility generating units. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 16, 2014 

Mr. MCCONNELL (for himself, Mr. VITTER, Mr. MORAN, Mr. SCOTT, Mr. 

HOEVEN, Mr. PORTMAN, Mr. THUNE, Mr. PAUL, Mr. HATCH, Mr. 

INHOFE, Mr. BLUNT, Mr. BARRASSO, Mr. ENZI, Mr. ROBERTS, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. ISAKSON, Mr. FLAKE, Mr. RUBIO, Mr. JOHANNS, Mr. BOOZMAN, Mrs. FISCHER, Ms. MURKOWSKI, Mr. CORNYN, Mr. JOHNSON of 

Wisconsin, Mr. RISCH, Mr. BURR, Mr. SHELBY, Mr. CHAMBLISS, Mr. 

COBURN, Mr. GRASSLEY, Mr. MCCAIN, Mr. ALEXANDER, Mr. CRAPO, 

Mr. LEE, Mr. COATS, Mr. TOOMEY, Mr. COCHRAN, Mr. CRUZ, Mr. KIRK, 

Mr. WICKER, Mr. CORKER, and Mr. GRAHAM) introduced the following 

joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 

Environment and Public Works 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

To disapprove a rule of the Environmental Protection Agency 

relating to greenhouse gas emissions from electric utility 

generating units. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the En4 vironmental Protection Agency relating to new source per5 formance standards for emissions of carbon dioxide for 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•SJ 30 IS 

1 new affected fossil fuel-fired electric utility generating 

2 units (published at 79 Fed. Reg. 1430 (January 8, 

3 2014)), and such rule shall have no force or effect. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOUND IN THE COMPANY'S
FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           3,434
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  239,888
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     76,913
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               436,094
<PP&E>                                         957,938
<DEPRECIATION>                               (136,065)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,936,167
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          329,158
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           463
<OTHER-SE>                                     606,333
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,936,167
<SALES>                                      1,836,479
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,836,479
<CGS>                                        1,562,167
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,562,167
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                98,641
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              42,506
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                135,353
<INCOME-TAX>                                    54,143
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             88,040
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    88,040
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.91
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.68
        

</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

HASINI PERKINS,

Defendant Below,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF DELAWARE,

Plaintiff Below,

Appellee.

§

§ 

§ No. 351, 2020

§

§ Court Below—Superior Court

§ of the State of Delaware

§ 

§ Cr. ID No. 0811004552 (N)

§

§

§

Submitted: November 12, 2020

Decided: December 2, 2020

Before VAUGHN, TRAYNOR, and MONTGOMERY-REEVES, Justices.

ORDER

After consideration of the notice to show cause and the parties’ responses, it 

appears to the Court that:

(1) On October 22, 2020, the appellant, Hasini Perkins, filed a notice of 

appeal from a Superior Court order, dated August 20, 2020 and docketed on August 

31, 2020, denying his motion for reduction/modification of sentence. A timely 

notice of appeal should have been filed by September 30, 2020.

1

 The Senior Court

1 Supr. Ct. R. 6(a)(iv) (providing notice of appeal must be filed “[w]ithin 30 days after entry upon 

the docket of a judgment or order in any proceeding for post-conviction relief”).
2

Clerk issued a notice directing Perkins to show cause why this appeal should not be 

dismissed as untimely filed under Supreme Court Rule 6. 

(2) In his response to the notice to show cause, Perkins states that he did 

not receive a copy of the order and did not learn of the order until he received a copy

of the Superior Court docket on September 25, 2020. According to the State, the 

Department of Correction has no record of incoming mail to Perkins in August or 

September. In light of the evidence supporting Perkins’s claim that he did not 

receive the August 2020 order in a timely manner, the State suggests that this Court 

remand the matter with directions to the Superior Court to reissue the August 2020

order so that Perkins has the opportunity to file a timely notice of appeal. 

(3) We agree that the proper course of action is to remand this matter to the 

Superior Court. Upon remand, the Superior Court shall reissue the August 2020 

order.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the within matter is 

REMANDED to the Superior Court for further action in accordance with this order. 

Jurisdiction is not retained.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Gary F. Traynor

Justice