alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tomasita BACA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 82SA167.

Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc.

Sept. 6, 1983.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 26, 1983.

*1371Duane Woodard, Atty. Gen., Charles B. Howe, Deputy Atty. Gen., Joel W. Cantrick, Sol. Gen., John Milton Hutchins, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for plaintiff-appellee.

David F. Vela, Colorado State Public Defender, Gerald E. Piper, Deputy State Public Defender, Denver, for defendant-appellant.

PER CURIAM.

A jury found defendant, Tomasita Baca, guilty of the offense of vehicular homicide.1 She has appealed her conviction on the ground that the requirement of proof of “proximate cause” renders this statute unconstitutionally vague, in violation of federal and Colorado constitutional guarantees of due process of law.2 In *People v. Rostad,*669 P.2d 126, 128 (Colo.1983), we concluded that the requirement of proof of “proximate cause” in section 18-3-106 “is sufficiently intelligible to satisfy both federal and Colorado constitutional standards of due process of law.” That decision is dispositive of the issue raised here by defendant. Therefore, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

1

. Section 18-3-106, C.R.S.1973 (1978 Repl.Vol. 8).

2

. As a result of the asserted constitutional challenge, this appeal was transferred from the Court of Appeals. *See*§§ 13-4-102(l)(b) and 13-4-110(l)(a), C.R.S.1973.
[No. 18005-7-II.

Division Two.

June 28, 1996.]

#### Karen Walters, *Appellant,*v. Jeffrey Forayter, *Respondent.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Clark County, No. 93-2-00775-6, Robert L. Harris, J., entered February 4, 1994. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Morgan, J, concurred in by Seinfeld, C.J., and Bridgewa-ter, J.
[Nos. 33988-5-I; 33989-3-I.

Division One.

June 17, 1996.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Michael Bernd Neureiter, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 93-1-02881, 93-1-01860-2, R. Joseph Wesley, J., entered December 28, 1993. *Affirmed*and *remanded*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
#### Brod BAGERT and Frank D. Farrar v. Kerry Maybee GOLDSMITH. Brod BAGERT v. Kerry Maybee GOLDSMITH.

No. 87-C-1257.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 12, 1987.

In re Goldsmith, Kerry Maybee; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Nos. CA-3235, CA-3759; Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court, Div. “K”, No. 84-16379.

Prior report: La.App., 504 So.2d 648.

Denied.

CALOGERO, J., would grant the writ.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

February 7, 2011 

d0131 

Order 

 

February 7, 2011 

141736 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 141736 

 COA: 298907 

Washtenaw CC: 09-001068-FH 

TODD MATTHEW CELLEY, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 4, 2010 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

March 26, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
132963 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan LAWRENCE W. BEACOM, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 132963 COA: 271139 WCAC: 04-000175 LAMB TECHNICON and INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, Defendants-Appellants.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 8, 2006 order of the Court of Appeals is consider ed, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.

t0319 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

March 26, 2007

Clerk
# Официален вестник C 123A/16 а

| | ISSN 1977-0855 |
| --- | --- |
| Официален вестник
  на Европейския съюз | C 123A |
| | |
| Издание на български език | Информация и известия | Година 6316 април 2020 г. |

ISSN 1977-0855

Официален вестник

на Европейския съюз

C 123A

Издание на български език

Информация и известия

Година 6316 април 2020 г.

---

| Съдържание | Страница |
| --- | --- |
| | Поправки |
| 2020/C 123 A/01 | Поправка на обявление за конкурси на общо основание — EPSO/AD/375/20 — Юрист-лингвисти (AD 7) с датски език (DA) — EPSO/AD/376/20 — Юрист-лингвисти (AD 7) с гръцки език (EL) — EPSO/AD/377/20 — Юрист-лингвисти (AD 7) с френски език (FR) — EPSO/AD/378/20 — Юрист-лингвисти (AD 7) с хърватски език (HR) — EPSO/AD/379/20 — Юрист-лингвисти (AD 7) с полски език (PL) ( ОВ C 72 A, 5.3.2020 г. ) | 1 |

Съдържание

Страница

Поправки

2020/C 123 A/01

Поправка на обявление за конкурси на общо основание — EPSO/AD/375/20 — Юрист-лингвисти (AD 7) с датски език (DA) — EPSO/AD/376/20 — Юрист-лингвисти (AD 7) с гръцки език (EL) — EPSO/AD/377/20 — Юрист-лингвисти (AD 7) с френски език (FR) — EPSO/AD/378/20 — Юрист-лингвисти (AD 7) с хърватски език (HR) — EPSO/AD/379/20 — Юрист-лингвисти (AD 7) с полски език (PL) ( ОВ C 72 A, 5.3.2020 г. )

( ОВ C 72 A, 5.3.2020 г. )

1

---

| BG | |
| --- | --- |

BG

---

Поправки

| 16.4.2020 | BG | Официален вестник на Европейския съюз | CA 123/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.4.2020

BG

Официален вестник на Европейския съюз

CA 123/1

---

Поправка на обявление за конкурси на общо основание — EPSO/AD/375/20 — Юрист-лингвисти (AD 7) с датски език (DA) — EPSO/AD/376/20 — Юрист-лингвисти (AD 7) с гръцки език (EL) — EPSO/AD/377/20 — Юрист-лингвисти (AD 7) с френски език (FR) — EPSO/AD/378/20 — Юрист-лингвисти (AD 7) с хърватски език (HR) — EPSO/AD/379/20 — Юрист-лингвисти (AD 7) с полски език (PL)

(
  Официален вестник на Европейския съюз C 72 A от 5 март 2020 г.
  )

(2020/C 123 A/01)

На страница 1

вместо:

„Краен срок за регистрация: 7 април 2020 г. в 12 ч. на обяд, брюкселско време“

да се чете:

да се чете:

„Краен срок за регистрация: 5 май 2020 г. в 12 ч. на обяд, брюкселско време“

На страница 6

вместо:

вместо:

„Кандидатствайте по електронен път на уебсайта на EPSO http://jobs.eu-careers.eu преди:

7 април 2020 г. в 12 ч. на обяд, брюкселско време.“

да се чете:

да се чете:

„Кандидатствайте по електронен път на уебсайта на EPSO http://jobs.eu-careers.eu преди:

5 май 2020 г. в 12 ч. на обяд, брюкселско време.“

---
III

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. RES. 370

To increase the authorization for expenditures relating to Senate activities

in connection with participation in interparliamentary institutions and

the facilitation of foreign interchanges in the United States, and for

other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER 10 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 22), 2000

Mr. HELMS submitted the following resolution; which was considered and

agreed to

RESOLUTION

To increase the authorization for expenditures relating to

Senate activities in connection with participation in interparliamentary institutions and the facilitation of foreign

interchanges in the United States, and for other purposes.

1 Resolved,

2 SECTION 1. INCREASE IN AUTHORIZATION FOR EXPENDI3 TURES RELATING TO FOREIGN INTER4 CHANGES.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—The first section of Senate Reso6 lution 247, Eighty-seventh Congress, agreed to February

7 7, 1962 (as amended by section 3(c) of Senate Resolution
2

•SRES 370 ATS

1 281, Ninety-sixth Congress, agreed to March 11, 1980)

2 is amended by striking ‘‘$25,000’’ and inserting

3 ‘‘$30,000’’.

4 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

5 subsection (a) shall take effect on the date on which this

6 resolution is agreed to and shall apply to fiscal year 2000

7 and each fiscal year thereafter.

Æ
Exhibit 10.30


December 12, 2001


Mr. Greg B. Jones
3060 Richfield Drive
Colorado Springs, CO  80919

Dear Mr. Jones:

I am pleased to confirm Ramtron's extension of your employment contract for
your continuation in the position of President of Ramtron International
Corporation.

The following are the essential points of our arrangement:

1.  Your salary shall be $210,000.00 annually, paid semi-monthly.

2.  The terms and conditions of the contract entered into between you and
    Ramtron dated February 2, 2001 shall remain the same with the contract
    term ending December 31, 2003.

3.  It is understood that your current stock option allotment will continue to
    be priced and vest at their existing rates.

I very much look forward to your continued employment with Ramtron and feel
your leadership will be significant in achieving our overall objectives.

Please sign and return one of the originals of this extension offer indicating
your acceptance.

Sincerely,                         I accept this extension offer.


/S/ William W. Staunton, III       /S/ Greg B. Jones
----------------------------       ------------------------
William W. Staunton, III           Greg B. Jones
Chief Executive Officer            President

WWS/klb

                                    Page-1
<PAGE>
Exhibit 31.1  CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER  I, Thomas W. Winfree, certify that:  1. I have reviewed the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Village Bank and Trust Financial Corp. for the quarter ended June 30, 2006;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4. The small business issuers other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:  (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuers disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  (c) disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuers most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuers fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting; and  5. The small business issuers other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuers auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuers board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuers ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting.   Date:  August 11, 2006 By: /s/ Thomas W. Winfree Thomas W. Winfree President and Chief Executive Officer
Summary of Stock Option



 Exhibit 10.1 
  
 Summary of Stock Options Granted to Executive Officers of Allin Corporation on July 7, 2005 
  
 On July 7, 2005, the Board of Directors of Allin Corporation (the
“Company”) approved the grant of options to each of Richard W. Talarico, the Company’s Chief Executive Officer, President and Chairman of the Company’s Board of Directors, and Dean C. Praskach, the Company’s Chief Financial
Officer, Secretary, Treasurer, and Vice President-Finance, to purchase shares of the Company’s common stock,. The Company’s Board of Directors granted such options in recognition of the expiration of certain other options held by each of
Messrs. Talarico and Praskach. The exercise price of each option was equal to $0.25 per share, the closing price of the common stock as reported by the OTC Bulletin Board on July 7, 2005, the date of grant. Each option will vest ratably at 20% per
year on the anniversary of issuance, subject to immediate vesting upon a change of control of the Company as specified in Messrs. Talarico’s and Praskach’s respective employment agreements, as amended. 
  
 Richard W. Talarico, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President – Options to
purchase 100,000 shares Dean C. Praskach, Chief Financial Officer – Options to purchase 25,000 shares
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

PAR PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.,

Appellant

v.

HORIZON THERAPEUTICS, LLC,

Appellee

______________________ 

2017-1451

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2015-

01117, IPR2016-00283.

______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 

AZIZ BURGY, Axinn, Veltrop & Harkrider LLP, Washington, DC, argued for appellant. Also represented by 

THOMAS K. HEDEMANN, Hartford, CT; DAVID H.

SILVERSTEIN, New York, NY.

 ROBERT FRITZ GREEN, Green, Griffith & Borg-Breen 

LLP, Chicago, IL, argued for appellee. Also represented 

by EMER LOUISE SIMIC; JAMES B. MONROE, Finnegan, 

Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, Washing-
 

ton, DC; MATTHEW CARMINE PHILLIPS, Laurence & Phillips IP Law LLP, Portland, OR.

______________________ 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (NEWMAN, DYK, and TARANTO, Circuit 

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

 June 18, 2018 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner 

 Date Peter R. Marksteiner

 Clerk of Court
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Appeal of -- ) 

) 

University of Louisville Research ) 

Foundation, Inc. ) 

) 

Under Contract No. W9113M-04-C-0024 ) 

APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 

ASBCA No. 58898 

Michael J. Vernick, Esq. 

C. Peter Dungan, Esq. 

Hogan Lovells US LLP 

Washington, DC 

Ronald J. Borro, Esq. 

Navy Chief Trial Attorney 

Stephanie Cates-Harman, Esq. 

Assistant Director 

Taylor N. Ferrell, Esq. 

Trial Attorney 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice. 

Dated: 30 April 2014 

Administrative Judge 

Vice Chairman 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed 

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 58898, Appeal of University of 

Louisville Research Foundation, Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 

Dated: 

JEFFREYD. GARDIN 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals
#### Dawkins Unemployment Compensation Case.

Argued March 12, 1962.

Before Rhodes, P. J., Ervin, Wright, Woodside, Watkins, Montgomery, and Flood, JJ.

*Rosie Lee*Dawkins, appellant, in propria persona, submitted a brief.

*Sydney*Reuben, Assistant Attorney General, with Mm *David Stahl,*Attorney General, for Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, appellee.

*428March 21, 1962:

Opinion by

Watkins, J.,

The claimant, Rosie Lee Dawkins, in this unemployment compensation appeal, was last employed by Alvin Lash Wholesale Shirt Laundry, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on November 18, 1960. At that time she terminated her employment to go to Buffalo, New York, to take care of her sister’s mentally retarded son and home. Continued work was available.

The Bureau of Employment Security and the Referee concluded that the claimant had voluntarily terminated her employment without cause of a necessitous and compelling nature and this disqualified her from benefits under the provisions of §402(b) (1), 48 PS §802(b) (1), of the Unemployment Compensation Law. The Unemployment Compensation Board of Review affirmed but modified this decision by disqualifying the claimant from benefits under §402(b)(2) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, 43 PS §802(b) (2).

The findings of the Board are supported by competent evidence, that she left her work in order to care for her sister’s child and home, outside the state. Section 402(b), 43 PS Sec. 802(b), was amended by the Act of December 17, 1959, P. L. 1893, to exclude the performance of domestic obligations as the required “necessitous and compelling” reasons for leaving work. “The pertinent part of this amendment makes the claimant ineligible for benefits, . . in which his or her unemployment is due to leaving work ... (II) because of a marital, filial or other domestic obligation or circumstance . . ”. *Buchko Unemployment Compensation Case,*196 Pa. Superior Ct. 559, 175 A. 2d 914 (1961).

Decision affirmed.
Summary of Board of Director Compensation



 Exhibit 10.2 
  
 Hungarian Telephone and Cable Corp. 
 Board of Directors 
 2005 - 2006 Board Term Compensation 
  
 Non-TDC Directors 
  
 Quarterly Fee of $2,500 
  
 In-person per meeting fee of $800 per meeting 
  
 Telephone per meeting fee of $400 per meeting 
  
 2,000 shares per year (vest at end of board term) 
  
 Audit Committee Chairman 
  
 Quarterly Fee of $2,500 
  
 In-person per meeting fee of $2,000 per meeting 
  
 Telephone per meeting fee of $1,000 per meeting 
  
 Other Non-TDC Audit Committee Member 
  
 In-person per meeting fee of $1,000 per meeting 
  
 Telephone per meeting
fee of $500 per meeting
#### Bartlebaugh, Appellee, *v.*The Pennsylvania Rd. Co., Appellant. 

(No. 31397

Decided May 5, 1948.)

*586*Messrs. Herbert & Dombey,*for appellee.

*Messrs. Burr, Porter, Stanley & Treffinger,*for appellant.

It is ordered and adjudged that this appeal as of right be, and the same hereby is, dismissed for the reason that no debatable constitutional question is involved.

*Appeal dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Turner, Matthias, Hart, Zimmerman, Sohngen and Stewart, JJ., concur.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

The certification set forth below is being submittedin connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of MuellerGroup, LLC (the “Report”) for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) orRule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “ExchangeAct”) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United StatesCode.

I, Jeffery W.Sprick, the Chief Financial Officer of Mueller Group, LLC, certify that, to thebest of my knowledge:

1.                the Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theExchange Act; and

2.                theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of Mueller Group, LLC.
| Date: May 9, 2007 | By:      | /s/ JEFFERY  W. SPRICK                                  |
|------------------------|----------|---------------------------------------------------------|
|                   |     | Jeffery W. Sprick                                       |
| * *               | * * | *Chief Financial Officer and Chief Accounting  Officer* |

 

----
391 A.2d 700

#### Commonwealth v. Sockel, Appellant.

Argued December 12, 1977.

Dennis J. Cogan, with him Kogan and Cogan, for appellant; Stephen S. Seeling, Assistant District Attorney, with him F. Emmett Fitzpatrick, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Judgment of sentence vacated and case remanded for resentencing.

WATKINS, former P. J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed August 13 , 2019

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14- 19 -00354- CR

ALVIS JACKSON III, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 26th District Court Williamson County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 16-0849-K26

MEMORANDUM OPINION
This attempted appeal is from an order of dismissal . Such an order is not appealable

. In Texas, appeals in criminal cases are permitted only when they are authorized by statute. State ex rel. Lykos , 330 S.W.3d 9 04, 915 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011); see Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 44.02. Generally, a criminal defendant may appeal only from a final judgment. See State v. Sellers , 790 S.W.2d 316, 321 n. 4 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990). A “final judgment” is a “final judgment of c onviction,”
which is defined in the Code of Criminal Procedure as “the written declaration of2

the court signed by the trial judge and entered of record showing the conviction or acquittal of the defendant.” Raley v. State , 441 S.W.3d 647, 650 (Tex. Ap p.

— Ho uston [1st Dist.] 2014, pet ref’d.); Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.01 § 1. The State filed a motion to dismiss the case against the defendant, which the trial court granted.
Because this appeal does not fall within the exceptions to the general rule that an appeal may be taken only from a final judgment of conviction, we have no jurisdiction.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jewell, Bourliot, and Zimmere r. Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
Order filed September 13, 2018 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-18-00626-CV

____________

PANUNCIO COLORADO, Appellant

V.

PHUONG LUU AND THANH TAT, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No 1

Travis County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. C-1-CV-17-011359

ORDER

On August 23, 2018, we ordered the Travis County Clerk to file the clerk’s 

record by September 7, 2018. The record has not been filed. 

Accordingly, we ORDER the Travis County Clerk to file the clerk’s record 

by September 24, 2018. If the record is not timely filed, we will take appropriate 

action.

PER CURIAM
CONTACT REPORT Person Calling: Keith Barnett U.S. Environmental Protection Agency OAQPS/ESD/OCG 919-541-5605

Person Called: Tim Matz Lehigh Cement Compant

Date of Contact: August 4, 2010

Contact Summary:

Lehigh has tested dust shuttli ng at three locations. The me rcury reduction results were:

Union Bridge – 30 percent Cupertino – 20 percent Tehachapi – 10 percent.

According to Tim Tehachapi as a lot of element mercury which reduced the effectiveness of dust shuttling

Only at Cupertino did they build a permanent sy stem to move the dust. The system cost $1.3 milion.