alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
4/17/2015,

TDCJ Offender Details

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE

3147-01

tt | TDCI Home 1 Q | New Offender Search

Offender Information Details
Return to Search list

SID Number:

TDCJ Number:

Name:
Race:
Gender:
DOB:

Maximum Sentence Date:

Current Facility:

Projected Release Date:

Parole Eligibility Date:

Offender Visitation Eligible:

05108920
01463447

WARNER,JAMES PAUL .

Ww

M
1976-03-10
2030-11-10
BETO
2030-11-10
2012-03-13
CALL

SPECIAL INFORMATION FOR SCHEDULED RELEASE:

Scheduled Release Date:

Scheduled Release Type:

Scheduled Release Location:

Parole Review Information

Offense History:

Offender is not scheduled for release at this time.
Will be determined when release date is scheduled.

Will be determined when release date is scheduled.

Offense Sentence Sentence (YY-MM-
Date Offense Date County Case No. DD)
1g93-09-15 | UNAUTHUSE | 1994.08.22 |NACOGDOCHES| 5537-93-10 3-00-00
1998-01-21 AGGASLT | , 1998-07-08 |NACOGDOCHES] 7806-98-3 7-00-00
1998-02-08 | RETALIATION | 1998-07-08 |NACOGDOCHES| 7832-98-A 5-00-00
2005-11-09 ]ASLTPUBSERV| 2007-10-17 |NACOGDOCHES|F 134902005] 25-00-00

http://offender .tdcj.state.tx.us/Offender Sear chvoffender Detail .action?sid=05108920

2


4/17/2015 , TDCJ Offender Details

| Retum to Search list

The Texas Department of Criminal Justice updates this information regularly to ensure that it is
complete and accurate, however this information can change quickly. Therefore, the information on
this site may not reflect the true current location, status, scheduled termination date, or other
information regarding an offender.

For questions and comments, you may contact the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, at (936)
295-6371 or webadmin@tdcj.texas.gov. This information is made available to the public and law
enforcement in the interest of public safety. Any unauthorized use of this information is forbidden and
Subject to criminal prosecution.

New Offender Search TDCJ Home Page

http://offender.tdcj.state.tx.us/Offender Sear clvoffender Detail .action?sid=05108920

22
# C_2016202EN.01027301.xml

| | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/273 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/273

---

PROTOCOL (No 8)

RELATING TO ARTICLE 6(2) OF THE TREATY ON EUROPEAN UNION ON THE ACCESSION OF THE UNION TO THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS

THE HIGH CONTRACTING PARTIES,

HAVE AGREED UPON the following provisions, which shall be annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union:

Article 1

The agreement relating to the accession of the Union to the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as the "European Convention") provided for in Article 6(2) of the Treaty on European Union shall make provision for preserving the specific characteristics of the Union and Union law, in particular with regard to:

| (a) | the specific arrangements for the Union's possible participation in the control bodies of the European Convention; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

the specific arrangements for the Union's possible participation in the control bodies of the European Convention;

| (b) | the mechanisms necessary to ensure that proceedings by non-Member States and individual applications are correctly addressed to Member States and/or the Union as appropriate. |
| --- | --- |

(b)

the mechanisms necessary to ensure that proceedings by non-Member States and individual applications are correctly addressed to Member States and/or the Union as appropriate.

Article 2

The agreement referred to in Article 1 shall ensure that accession of the Union shall not affect the competences of the Union or the powers of its institutions. It shall ensure that nothing therein affects the situation of Member States in relation to the European Convention, in particular in relation to the Protocols thereto, measures taken by Member States derogating from the European Convention in accordance with Article 15 thereof and reservations to the European Convention made by Member States in accordance with Article 57 thereof.

Article 3

Nothing in the agreement referred to in Article 1 shall affect Article 344 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

---
#### Millard LEDEETTER, Appellant, v. Anthony C. CELEBREZZE, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, Appellee.

No. 2®3&7.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

Nov. 14, 1963.

Jay M. Sawilowsky, Augusta, Ga., for appellant.

William T. Morton, Asst. U. S. Atty., Augusta, Ga., Sherman L. Cohn and Edward Berlin, Attys., D. of J., Washington, D. C., John W. Douglas, Asst. Atty. Gen., Donald H. Frazer, U. S. Atty., Louis T. Rigdon, II, Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Atlanta, Ga., for appellee.

Before TUTTLE, Chief Judge, and BROWN and BELL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The finding of the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare that Appellant had no period of disability under 42 U.S. C.A. § *416(i)*— so as to entitle Appellant to disability insurance benefits under 42 U.S.C.A. § 423 — is supported by substantial evidence, 42 U.S.C.A. § 405 (g), and consequently the District Court did not err in granting summary judgment for the Secretary.

Affirmed.
#### G. M. FOSTER, Individually, G. M. Foster, Assistant Secretary of Standard Oil Company of California, and Standard Oil Company of California, Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 9287.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Dec. 11, 1939.

Felix T. Smith, of San Francisco, Cal., and Oscar Lawler, of Los Angeles, Cal. (Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro, of San Francisco, Cal., and Lawler, Felix & Hall, of Los Angeles, Cal., of counsel), for appellants.

Joseph E. Brill, M. S. Huberman, Henry McClernan, Robert H. Marquis, Laurence P. Sherfy, Charles S. Burdell, and A. Andrew Hauk, Sp. Assts. to Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before WILBUR, DENMAN, and STEPHENS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

It appearing that the appeal in above entitled cause has become moot, it is ordered that the appeal be dismissed, that a decree of dismissal be filed and entered accordingly, and the mandate of this court in this cause issued forthwith.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Tony Brown, Appellant.

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Murray Mogel, J.), rendered September 29, 1988, convicting defendant, after jury trial, of grand larceny in the fourth degree, and sentencing him as a predicate felon to 2 to 4 years’ imprisonment, unanimously affirmed.

Evidence adduced at trial was that in the afternoon of May 2, 1988, defendant approached William Ahdout at the Madison Square Garden mall, snatched concert tickets out of his hand, and fled. The incident was observed by a private security officer, who recognized and identified defendant at trial, as did the complaining witness. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, defendant’s guilt was *371proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The issue of possible suggestiveness of a show-up procedure arranged by private security personnel was fully explored by defense counsel on cross-examination, and any inconsistencies in the testimony were for the jury to resolve. Indeed, there were no appreciable inconsistencies that would warrant reversal *(see, e.g., People v Matthews,*159 AD2d 410, *lv denied*76 NY2d 861).

The testimony of the People’s witness that defendant argues implied previous similar criminal activity by defendant, either was elicited by defense counsel on cross-examination, or was duly objected to, with the objection sustained and immediate curative instructions given by the trial court. It is presumed that the jury followed the trial court’s curative instructions *(see, e.g., People v Rodriguez,*103 AD2d 121), and as defendant raised no further objection, he has waived appellate review *(see, e.g., People v Santiago,*52 NY2d 865).

Finally, the trial court’s charge to the jury, unobjected to by defendant, that instructed, *inter alia,*"When there are any inconsistencies in the testimony of a witness, or between one witness or the other, you must reconcile them if you honestly can”, adequately conveyed the appropriate standard *(see, e.g., People v Thomas,*50 NY2d 467). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Milonas, Ellerin, Wallach and Smith, JJ.
##### 



Exhibit 13 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549 Ladies and Gentlemen: The certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with the amendment to
Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2003 (the Report) for the purpose of
complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
Exchange Act) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code. Fujio Mitarai, President and Chief Executive Officer of Canon Inc. and Toshizo Tanaka, Senior
Managing Director, Group Executive of Finance and Accounting Headquarters of Canon Inc., each
certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:  1.
    
    
    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Canon. Name:_/s/ Fujio Mitarai_Fujio MitaraiPresident and Chief Executive OfficerDecember 22, 2004Name:_/s/ Toshizo TanakaToshizo TanakaSenior Managing Director,
Group Executive of Finance and
Accounting HeadquartersDecember 22, 2004
# C_2012326EN.01033701.xml

| 26.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/1

---

DECLARATIONS

DECLARATIONS

ANNEXED TO THE FINAL ACT OF THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE WHICH ADOPTED THE TREATY OF LISBON,

ANNEXED TO THE FINAL ACT OF THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE WHICH ADOPTED THE TREATY OF LISBON

signed on 13 December 2007

A.   DECLARATIONS CONCERNING PROVISIONS OF THE TREATIES

DECLARATIONS CONCERNING PROVISIONS OF THE TREATIES

7.   Declaration on Article 16(4) of the Treaty on European Union and Article 238(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

Declaration on Article 16(4) of the Treaty on European Union and Article 238(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

The Conference declares that the decision relating to the implementation of Article 16(4) of the Treaty on European Union and Article 238(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union will be adopted by the Council on the date of the signature of the Treaty of Lisbon and will enter into force on the day that Treaty enters into force. The draft decision is set out below:

---
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



(ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)



In connection with the periodic report of Dynegy Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q
for the period ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Nick J. Caruso, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify as
of the date hereof, solely for the purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:



|(1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(2) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company at the dates and for the periods
indicated.
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       |  |  |  |     |  |                       |  |                                                     
|---------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | --------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------
|                       |  |  | 
|Date: November 9, 2005 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/    NICK J. CARUSO
|                       |  |  |  |     |  |                       |  | Nick J. Caruso                                      
|                       |  |  |  |     |  |                       |  | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

Exhibit 10.13  


 
 

Schedule of Executive Officers    
  


Receiving Form 1 Change of Control Agreement or Form 2 Change of Control Agreement  


Executive
Officers Receiving Form 1 Change of Control Agreements: 



C.
Michael Carter

Michael J. Cavallero

George Horne

Kenneth J. Kay

Lawrence A. Kern

David H. Murdock

Peter M. Nolan

Eric Schwartz 




Executive
Officers Receiving Form 1 Change of Control Agreements: 



Gil
Brook

Beth Potillo

Roberta Wieman 










QuickLinks


Schedule of Executive Officers
# C_2012326EN.01004701.xml

| 26.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/1

---

CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

PART SIX

INSTITUTIONAL AND FINANCIAL PROVISIONS

INSTITUTIONAL AND FINANCIAL PROVISIONS

TITLE I

INSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

INSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

CHAPTER 1

THE INSTITUTIONS

SECTION 5

SECTION 5

THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

Article 278

(ex Article 242 TEC)

(ex Article 242 TEC)

Actions brought before the Court of Justice of the European Union shall not have suspensory effect. The Court may, however, if it considers that circumstances so require, order that application of the contested act be suspended.

---
**Exhibit
      32.1**




**Certification**


**Pursuant
      to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**


**(Subsections
      (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States
      Code)**




Pursuant
      to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of
      section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the
      undersigned officers of Synvista Therapeutics Inc., a Delaware company (the
      “Company”), does hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge, that:





The
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the nine months ended September 30, 2007
      (the
“Form 10-Q”) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section
      13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information
      contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the
      financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




Date:
                November 14, 2007
            
            
            
            By:
            
            /s/
                Noah Berkowitz, M.D., Ph.D.Noah
                Berkowitz, M.D., Ph.D.
              President
                and Chief Executive Officer
              (principal
                executive officer)







Date:
                November 14, 2007
            
            
            
            By:
            
            /s/
                Jeffrey P. SteinJeffrey
                P. Stein, CPA
              (principal
                financial and accounting officer)







A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
      and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





31
Exhibit No. 23(a)





CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





We
consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.
333−70332 on Form S−8, Registration Statement No. 333−78157 on Form S−4,
Registration Statement No. 333-104951 on Form S-8, Registration Statement No.
333-104952 on Form S-8, Registration Statement No. 333-155418 on Form S-3,
Registration Statement No. 333-155418-03 on Form S-3, Registration Statement No.
333-155418-04 on Form S-3, Registration Statement No. 333-155418-05 on Form S-3,
Registration Statement No. 333−155541 on Form S−8 and Registration Statement No.
333−155543 on Form S−8 of our report dated March 2, 2009, relating to the
consolidated financial statements and consolidated financial statement schedule
of Progress Energy, Inc. (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and
includes an explanatory paragraph concerning the adoption of new accounting
principles in 2008, 2007 and 2006) and the effectiveness of Progress Energy,
Inc’s internal control over financial reporting appearing in this Annual Report
on Form 10-K of Progress Energy, Inc. for the year ended December 31,
2008.





/s/
Deloitte & Touche LLP








Raleigh,
North Carolina


March 2,
2009
THE STATE OF TEXAS

MANDATE

TO THE 115TH DISTRICT COURT OF MARION COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Court of Appeals District of Texas, on the 3rd 

day of February, A.D. 2015, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your Judgment was 

determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

Stephen W. Pendergrass, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

No. 06-14-00169-CR

Trial Court No. F14437

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court 

below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We note that the appellant, Stephen W. Pendergrass, has adequately indicated his 

inability to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court in this 

behalf, and in all things to have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS, the Hon. Josh R. Morriss, III, Chief Justice of our said Court of Appeals, with 

the seal thereof annexed, at the City of Texarkana, this the 8th day of April, A.D. 2015.

DEBRA K. AUTREY, Clerk
# C_2012326EN.01033701.xml

| 26.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/1

---

DECLARATIONS

DECLARATIONS

ANNEXED TO THE FINAL ACT OF THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE WHICH ADOPTED THE TREATY OF LISBON,

ANNEXED TO THE FINAL ACT OF THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE WHICH ADOPTED THE TREATY OF LISBON

signed on 13 December 2007

A.   DECLARATIONS CONCERNING PROVISIONS OF THE TREATIES

DECLARATIONS CONCERNING PROVISIONS OF THE TREATIES

20.   Declaration on Article 16 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

Declaration on Article 16 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

The Conference declares that, whenever rules on protection of personal data to be adopted on the basis of Article 16 could have direct implications for national security, due account will have to be taken of the specific characteristics of the matter. It recalls that the legislation presently applicable (see in particular Directive 95/46/EC) includes specific derogations in this regard.

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

ANTWAIN OLIVER,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 509 WAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 16th day of April, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED.
# C_2016202EN.01039901.xml

| 7.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/399 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/399

---

Article 28

Right of collective bargaining and action

Workers and employers, or their respective organisations, have, in accordance with Union law and national laws and practices, the right to negotiate and conclude collective agreements at the appropriate levels and, in cases of conflicts of interest, to take collective action to defend their interests, including strike action.

---
MEMORANDUM

TO: Michael Wroblewski, Craig Caplan

FROM: Wil Lim DATE: 2/21/2013

SUBJECT: Description of How Nearest Neighbor Builds upon the 

Current Peer Grouping Approach for Per Capita Costs

This memo describes how the “nearest neighbor” approach builds upon the PY2012 peer 

grouping methodology of classifying groups based solely on size by expanding it to incorporate 

group practice specialty mix. This revised methodology will lead to more comparable peer 

groups for per capita costs measures.

To provide a comparative context for assessing performance, group practices’ per capita 

costs are compared to benchmarks computed from the performance of practices in their peer 

group. In PY2012 reporting, these peer groups are defined according to practice size. Namely, 

the peer group for practices with 100+ eligible providers (EPs) consists of all practices with 100+ 

EPs. The peer group for practices with 25-99 EPs consists of all practices with 25-99 EPs as well 

as practices with 100+ EPs. To create more comparable peer groups for future reporting cycles, 

we will build upon this approach by adding specialty mix to peer grouping methodology and 

giving more (or less) weight to the performance of groups that are more (or less) comparable to a 

referenced group practice.

We construct more comparable peer groups by first stratifying practices into two distinct 

categories, practices with 25-99 EPs and practices with 100+ EPs. Practices with 100+ EPs will 

no longer be included in the peer group for practices with 25-99 EPs, so that the former’s 

effective weight in the latter’s benchmark is zero. We then classify practices based on the share 

of physicians of each specialty, similar in principal to how we group practices based on ranges of 

practice size. Practices are considered to have the same specialty mix if the share of physicians 

of each specialty is within the same range (e.g. 0-25%, 26-50%, 51-75%, 76-100%) for both 

practices. For example, if we were to consider only two specialties, cardiology and primary care, 

then a practice that was 30% cardiology and 40% primary care would be given equal weight as a 

practice that was 40% cardiology and 30% primary care, because both specialties fall into the 26-

50% range for both practices. A practice that was 30% cardiology and 60% primary care would 

be in a less comparable, but neighboring, range and would be given less weight when computing 

the benchmark average. By doing this for all possible pairs of practices and weighting based on 

comparability, we are then able to compute benchmarks that are constructed from a more 

comparable peer group. 
MEMO TO: Michael Wroblewski, Craig Caplan

FROM: Wil Lim

DATE: 2/20/2013

PAGE: 2

cc: Jeff Ballou, Mai Hubbard, Lara Converse