alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal

revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108

- 1750; (617) 557

- 1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us

SJC

- 13 519

ORRETT DALEY vs

. COMMONWEALTH

.

March 29, 2024.

Supreme Judicial Cour t , Superintendence of inferior courts, Appeal from order of single justice.

Orrett Daley appeals from a judgment of the county court denying, without a hearing, his petition for relief under G. L.

c. 211, § 3 , on the ground that he has an adequate remedy in the normal appellate process

. We affirm.

Daley has been charged in the District Court with operating
a motor vehicle while under the influence of liquor and other
offenses. He filed a motion for third

- party records, specifically, per sonal tele phone records of the State police trooper 1 who conducted the motor vehicle stop that resulted in the charges. That motion was denied, as was a motion for reconsideration. Some months later, Daley filed a motion to impose sanctions on the Commo nwealth for an alleged l a ck of compliance with a discovery order and a request for records based on new evidence. That motion and request were also denied. Daley ' s G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition challenged these interlocutory rulings.

The case is before us pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 2:21 (2), as amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001), which requires Daley to file a

1 The trooper filed a motion to intervene in the county court proceedings. The single justice, having ruled that Daley was not entitled to relief, denied the motion to intervene as

moot. That ruling has not been challenged before us.2

record appendix and memorandum " set[ting] forth the reasons why review of the trial court decision cannot adequately be obtained

on ap peal from any final adverse judgment in the trial court or by other available means. " 2 Daley cannot make this showing. The adverse rulings can be addressed on appeal if he is convicted of any offense. Daley asserts that he should not have to await

conv iction and appeal, but offers no reason why this ordinary process, applicable in any other case where a criminal defendant unsuccessfully moves for discovery, is inadequate in his case. The single justice neither erred nor abused his discretion by denying relief.

Judgment affirmed

.

The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by

a memorandum of law. Michael A. McLaughlin for the petitioner

.

2 Daley has filed a brief , which we are treating as the

memorandum required by the rule.
Exhibit 31.2
I, Dennis LaLumandiere, certify that:
 1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Laserscope;  2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;  3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded 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 periodspresented in this report;  4.  The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining 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 suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  b)  Designed such internal controls over financial reporting, orcaused such internal controls over financial reporting to be designed under oursupervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability offinancial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for externalpurposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;  c)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  d)  Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;and
 5.  The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent functions):
 

 

 a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably 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 orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting.   Date: March 31, 2005      /s/ Dennis LaLumandiere      Dennis LaLumandiere Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 99/2006

of 19 January 2006         

fixing the maximum reduction in the duty on maize imported in connection with the invitation to tender issued in Regulation (EC) No 2093/2005

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 of 29 September 2003 on the common organisation of the market in cereals (1), and in particular Article 12(1) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

For tenders notified from 13 to 19 January 2006, pursuant to the invitation to tender issued in Regulation (EC) No 2093/2005, the maximum reduction in the duty on maize imported shall be 22,86 EUR/t and be valid for a total maximum quantity of 84 655 t.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 20 January 2006.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 19 January 2006.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL            

Member of the Commission

----

(1)OJ L 270, 21.10.2003, p. 78. Regulation as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1154/2005 (OJ L 187, 19.7.2005, p. 11).

(2)OJ L 335, 20.12.2005, p. 3.

(3)OJ L 177, 28.7.1995, p. 4. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1558/2005 (OJ L 249, 24.9.2005, p. 6).

----
The State of TexasAppellee/s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 18, 2014

No. 04-14-00382-CR

Rene ESCALANTE,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 452nd District Court, Edwards County, Texas

Trial Court No. 1679

The Honorable Robert Hoffman, Judge Presiding

ORDER

On June 13, 2014, court reporter Tina Yong filed a notice of late reporter’s record. The 

record was subsequently filed on June 18. 2014. Accordingly, we construe the notice of late 

reporter’s record as moot.

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 18th day of June, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
**Exhibit 23**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

Community Financial Corporation
Staunton, Virginia

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-109218 of Community Financial Corporation on Form S-8 of our report dated May 23, 2007, relating to our audits of the consolidated balance sheets of Community Financial Corporation and subsidiary as of March 31, 2007 and 2006 and the related consolidated statements of income, stockholders' equity and cash flows for the years ended March 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005, which appear in this Form 10-K of Community Financial Corporation for the year ended March 31, 2007.

/s/ Yount, Hyde and Barbour, P.C.

Winchester, Virginia
June 28, 2007
#### The SIGMAN MEAT COMPANY, and Continental Casualty Company, Petitioners, v. The INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS OFFICE OF the STATE OF COLORADO, Rudolph Martin, and Director, Division of Labor, Department of Labor and Employment, Respondents.

No. 87CA0667.

Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. I.

May 19, 1988.

Rehearing Denied June 23, 1988.

Certiorari Denied Sept. 19, 1988.

James R. Clifton & Associates, P.C., James R. Clifton, Denver, for petitioners.

Duane Woodard, Atty. Gen., Charles B. Howe, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen., Richard H. Forman, Sol. Gen., Michael J. Steiner, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for respondents Indus. Claim Appeals Office and Director, Div. of Labor.

Lynn L. Palma, Denver, for respondent Rudolph Martin.

PLANK, Judge.

In this workmen’s compensation case, the sole question for review is whether The Sigman Meat Company and Continental Casualty Company (petitioners) must reimburse Rudolph Martin (claimant) for transportation expenses incurred in seeking authorized medical treatment. The Industrial Claim Appeals Office (Panel) held that reimbursement is proper. We affirm.

Claimant’s injury rendered him unable to drive long distances. On most occasions when it was necessary to consult his physicians, claimant took a taxicab. On other occasions, if the distance was short, claimant drove himself.

*266The Panel determined that claimant was entitled to reimbursement for these expenses because they were incident to authorized medical treatment. The Panel relied on our supreme court’s decision in *Industrial Commission v. Pacific Employers Insurance Co.,*120 Colo. 373, 209 P.2d 908 (1949), which held that room and board expenses necessitated by out of town medical treatment were compensable as incidental to secondary hospital services. We agree with this analysis.

Petitioners contend that the Panel erred in ordering reimbursement because § 8-49-101(l)(a), C.R.S. (1986 Repl.Vol. 3B) authorizes transportation expenses only while a worker attends a vocational rehabilitation course. Petitioner argues that if the General Assembly had intended similar compensation for medical treatment, it would have so stated.

The General Assembly has met on many occasions since *Pacific Employers Insurance Co.*was decided. We presume that the construction of the statute in that case has been approved and become part of our state law. *Nye v. District Court,*168 Colo. 272, 450 P.2d 669 (1969). If it had desired to change or reject *Pacific Employers Insurance Co.,*the General Assembly would have expressly done so by appropriate legislation.

Petitioners also urge us to use the maxim of *expressio unius est exclusio alterius*in construing the statute. We decline to interpret the statute by that maxim. Instead, we conclude that the statute implicitly allows reimbursement for transportation expenses incurred in obtaining medical treatment.

Claimant’s request for sanctions pursuant to C.A.R. 38(d) is denied.

The order is affirmed.

PIERCE and TURSI, JJ., concur.
---

EXHIBIT 10.59

AGREEMENT

This Agreement (Agreement) made this 13th day of
June, 2009 in Albuquerque, New Mexico, shall serve as the complete and final
understanding by and between Santa Fe Gold Corporation (the Company), 1128
Pennsylvania Avenue NE, Suite 200, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87110 and Minera de
Suaqui Grande, S. de R.L. de C.V. (MSG), Avenida Diez No. 7 entre Dos y Tres,
Col. Bugambilia, Hermosillo, Sonora, Mexico.

WHEREAS, on June 13, 2009, the Companys subsidiary Minera
Sandia S.A. de C.V. entered into an option contract with Minera de Suaqui
Grande, S. de R.L. de C.V. (MSG Contract) to purchase the Pilar Gold Property,
consisting of the Guadalupana and the La Sonora concessions containing
approximately 100 hectares; and

WHEREAS, MSG is familiar with the surface owners and with local
procedures related to access to the Pilar Gold Property; and

WHEREAS, the Company wishes to enlist the help of MSG in
reaching agreements with the surface owners for access and exploration work;

THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained
herein, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Company
and MSG agree as follows:

While the MSG Contract remains in effect, MSG shall consult
with and advise the Companys representatives as to surface owner issues related
to the Pilar Gold Property and, if requested, shall accompany such
representatives to meet with the surface owners for the purpose of arranging
access agreements.

Upon execution of this Agreement, the Company shall forthwith
arrange for 117,000 shares of the Companys restricted common stock to be issued
to MSG.

This Agreement shall be deemed to be executed and delivered
within the State of New Mexico and is to be construed, interpreted and applied
in accordance with the laws of the State of New Mexico.

AGREED to as of the date above.

______________________________ Minera de Suaqui Grande S. de R.L. de C.V., 
  Represented by Jorge Luis Fimbres Castillo



______________________________Santa Fe Gold Corporation, 
  Represented by William Pierce Carson

---
Letter Agreement No. 10 to the Airbus A350-900XWB



 Exhibit 10.37 

LETTER AGREEMENT NO. 10 

As of March 5, 2010 
 United
Air Lines, Inc. 
 77 West Wacker Drive 

Chicago, Illinois 60601 
 [CONFIDENTIAL
MATERIAL OMITTED AND FILED SEPARATELY WITH THE SEC PURSUANT TO A REQUEST FOR CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT] 
 Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,

 United Air Lines, Inc. (the “Buyer”), and AIRBUS S.A.S. (the “Seller”), have entered into an Airbus
A350-900XWB Purchase Agreement dated as of even date herewith (the “Agreement”), which covers, among other things, the sale by the Seller and the purchase by the Buyer of certain Aircraft, under the terms and conditions set forth in
said Agreement. The Buyer and the Seller have agreed to set forth in this Letter Agreement No. 10 (the “Letter Agreement”) certain additional terms and conditions regarding the sale of the Aircraft. Capitalized terms used
herein and not otherwise defined in this Letter Agreement will have the meanings assigned thereto in the Agreement. The terms “herein,” “hereof” and “hereunder” and words of similar import refer to this Letter
Agreement. 
 Both parties agree that this Letter Agreement will constitute an integral, nonseverable part of said Agreement, that the
provisions of said Agreement are hereby incorporated herein by reference, and that this Letter Agreement will be governed by the provisions of said Agreement, except that if the Agreement and this Letter Agreement have specific provisions which are
inconsistent, the specific provisions contained in this Letter Agreement will govern. 
  

 AIRBUS S.A.S. & UNITED AIR LINES, INC. – PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL 








  

	1.	[CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL OMITTED AND FILED SEPARATELY WITH THE SEC PURSUANT TO A REQUEST FOR CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT] 


 

	2.	ASSIGNMENT 

 This Letter
Agreement and the rights and obligations of the parties will be subject to the provisions of Clause 21 of the Agreement. 
  

	3.	CONFIDENTIALITY 

 This
Letter Agreement is subject to the terms and conditions of Clause 22.10 of the Agreement. 
  

	4	COUNTERPARTS 

 This Letter
Agreement may be executed by the parties hereto in separate counterparts, each of which when so executed and delivered shall be an original, but all such counterparts shall together constitute one and the same instrument. 

 

 AIRBUS S.A.S. & UNITED AIR LINES, INC. – PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL 








 If the foregoing correctly sets forth our understanding, please execute the original and one (1) copy hereof
in the space provided below and return a copy to the Seller. 
  

			
	 Very truly yours,

	
	AIRBUS S.A.S.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ John J. Leahy

		
	Its:	 	 Chief Operating Officer

Customers



  

					
	 	 	 Accepted and Agreed

		
	 	 	UNITED AIR LINES, INC.
			
		 	By:	 	 /s/ Kathryn A. Mikells

			
		 	Its:	 	 Executive Vice President and

Chief Financial Officer


  

 AIRBUS S.A.S. & UNITED AIR LINES, INC. – PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL
Order filed November 20 , 2014.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 13

- 00763

- CR

____________ VINCENT JOHN ZAHORIK , Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No

. 2

Galveston County, Texas Tr ial Court Cause No. MD

- 0322640



### ORDER

T he Court has granted appellant’s motion to reschedule oral argument. Oral argument will be heard on January 12 , 2015, at 1:30 p.m . Also pending is appellant’s amended motion to substitute counsel. We ORDER counsel to deliver a copy of the motion to appellant in person or by both certified and first

- class mail, in compliance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 6.5(b). Counsel is directed to certify to this C ourt compliance with the rule within ten days of the date o f this order.In addition, the C ourt requests additiona l briefing to address : (1) whether a

showing of bad faith is required in this case under McGee v. State , 671 S.W.2d 892, 895 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984), and Wood v. State , 577 S.W.2d 477, 480 (Tex. Crim. A pp. 1978); and (2) if so, whether there is sufficient evidence of bad faith to support appellant’s conviction

. Additional briefing, which may be in letter form, is due on or before December 15, 2014

.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and J ustices Christopher and Busby.
Served: June 21, 2012

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation

on the 21st of June, 2012

Essential Air Service at

ADAK, ALASKA

Under 49 U.S.C. 41731 et seq. 

DOCKET DOT-OST-2000-8556

NOTICE OF EXTENSION FOR PROPOSALS AT ADAK, ALASKA

By Order 2010-7-9 the Department selected Alaska Airlines, Inc. to provide two nonstop or onestop round trips per week between Adak and Anchorage with Boeing 737-400 aircraft for 

$1,675,703 annually through June 30, 2012. 

As the end of the current rate term was approaching, Order 2012-2-8 requested proposals at Adak

and we received a timely-filed proposal from only one carrier, Peninsula Airways, Inc., (PenAir). 

However, Order 2012-5-24 rejected PenAir’s proposal and re-solicited competitive bids, with the 

deadline for proposals set for June 26, 2012. On June 19 we received a request from Everts Air 

Cargo for an extension to July 12.

We will grant that request. Proposals at Adak are now due on July 12, 2012.

Dennis DeVany, Chief,

EAS and Domestic Analysis

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide Web at

http://www.regulations.gov
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLAImages

# DLA Images

Search

Search

                                  - All Images 
                                  - Other 

                                  - Upload Date
                                  - Photo Date
                                  - Title

Share

----

Download Image: Small ()Medium ()Full Size (1.21 MB)

Tags:

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 94/2006

of 19 January 2006         

fixing the export refunds on syrups and certain other sugar products exported in the natural state

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 of 19 June 2001 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (1), and in particular the second subparagraph of Article 27(5) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The export refunds on the products listed in Article 1(1)(d), (f), (g) and (h) of Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001, exported in the natural state, shall be set out in the Annex hereto to this Regulation.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 20 January 2006.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 19 January 2006.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL            

Member of the Commission

----

(1)OJ L 178, 30.6.2001, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 39/2004 (OJ L 6, 10.1.2004, p. 6).

(2)OJ L 214, 8.9.1995, p. 16.

(3)OJ L 178, 30.6.2001, p. 63.

----

ANNEX

EXPORT REFUNDS ON SYRUPS AND CERTAIN OTHER SUGAR PRODUCTS EXPORTED WITHOUT FURTHER PROCESSING APPLICABLE FROM 20 JANUARY 2006 (1)

----

(1)  The amounts set out in this Annex are not applicable with effect from 1 February 2005 pusrsuant to Council Decision 2005/45/EC of 22 December 2004 concerning the conclusion and the provisional application of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation amending the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Swiss Confederation of 22 July 1972 as regards the provisions applicable to processed agricultural products (OJ L 23, 26.1.2005, p. 17).

(1)  Applicable only to products referred to in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 2135/95.

(2)  Applicable only to products referred to in Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 2135/95.

(3)  The basic amount is not applicable to syrups which are less than 85 % pure (Regulation (EC) No 2135/95). Sucrose content is determined in accordance with Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 2135/95.

(4)  The basic amount is not applicable to the product defined under point 2 of the Annex to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3513/92 (OJ L 355, 5.12.1992, p. 12).

----