alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2012326EN.01039301.xml

| 26.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/391 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/391

---

CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

TITLE V

CITIZENS' RIGHTS

CITIZENS' RIGHTS

Article 43

European Ombudsman

Any citizen of the Union and any natural or legal person residing or having its registered office in a Member State has the right to refer to the European Ombudsman cases of maladministration in the activities of the institutions, bodies, offices or agencies of the Union, with the exception of the Court of Justice of the European Union acting in its judicial role.

---
<PAGE>

                                EXHIBIT (10)(a)

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

<PAGE>

                        Consent of Independent Auditors



We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption "Independent Auditors"
in the Statements of Additional Information and to the use of our reports
(1) dated February 15, 2002 with respect to the statutory-basis financial
statements and schedules of Transamerica Life Insurance Company, (2) dated
February 1, 2002 with respect to the financial statements of certain
subaccounts of Retirement Builder Variable Annuity Account, which are
available for investment by contract owners of the Retirement Income Builder
Variable Annuity, (3) dated February 1, 2002 with respect to the financial
statements of certain subaccounts of Retirement Builder Variable Annuity
Account, which are available for investment by contract owners of the
Retirement Income Builder II Variable Annuity and (4) dated February 1, 2002
with respect to the financial statements of certain subaccounts of Retirement
Builder Variable Annuity Account, which are available for investment by
contract owners of Portfolio Select Variable Annuity, included in
Post-Effective Amendment No. 14 to the Registration Statement (Form N-4
No. 333-7509) and related Prospectuses of Retirement Income Builder Variable
Annuity, Retirement Income Builder II Variable Annuity and Portfolio Select
Variable Annuity.


                                                           /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Des Moines, Iowa
April 25, 2002
**Exhibit 10.22.2**

 

Key [*] = CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

 

**ENGAGE**

 
|                              |          | *Fax No. (206) 624-7215* |
|-----------------------------------|---------------|--------------------------|
|                              |          |                     |
| February 28, 2003            |          |                     |
|                              |          |                     |
| Cascade Natural Gas Corporation   |          |                     |
| 222 Fairview Avenue North         |          |                     |
|  Seattle, Washington *98109* |          |                     |
|                              |          |                     |
| Attention:                        | Pattie Grable |                     |   |
|                                   |               |                          |  |

 

Re:                              Confirmationof [*] as it relates to Revised Gas Transaction Confirmation, Engage EnergyCanada, LP contract #1872 dated November 1, 2001

 

Dear Pattie:

 

Cascade Natural GasCorporation (“Cascade”) has a  fixedprice contract with Engage Energy Canada, L.P. (“Engage”),Revised GasTransaction Confirmation, Engage Contract #1872, dated November 20, 2001,(“GTC #1872”), that fixes the priced on the total volume 27,037 MMBtu per day,of the Kingsgate Gas Sales Agreement, for the term November 1, 2002through October 31, 2004. Duke Energy Trading and Marketing LLC (“DETM”),is acting as agent for Engage as a result of Duke Energy Corporation’sacquistion of Westcoast Energy, Inc., the former parent company of Engage.

 

This letter confirms ourconversation at approximately 12:30 PM (MST) today, in which you authorized me,based on the pricing data I had faxed to you earlier (also attached), to [*] ofCascade’s fixed price position (2,433 MMBtus per day). This resulted in a newfixed price for the total of 27,037 MMBtu per day as follows.

 

For the period,November 1, 2003 through March 31, 2004 = US $ [*]per MMBtu:

 

I want to to reiteratethat the load factor for the November 2003 through October 2004 termof the Kingsgate Agreement are [*] and will be [*]. If the load factor for thewinter are [*] , then Cascade will not only pay the new fixed price detailedabove, [*], but would also pay [*]. For example, if the re-negotiated loadfactor for next winter Is 95%, then Cascade would pay [*] or [*] of its dailyContract Quality in addition to paying the [*] per MMBtu per day on27,037MMBtu.

 

I appreciate the opportunity to continue to provideCascade natural gas services. Please do not hesitate to call if you have anyquestions or require further information.

 

Very truly yours,

 

DUKE ENERGY TRADING ANDMARKETING SERVICES, L.L.C.

 

T. Ken CheesemanJr.

Lead Marketor

 

Cc: Keith Barnhart

 

----
BRESLER & REINER, INC.



Exhibit 32



SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION



Certificate of Chief Executive and Chief Financial Officers of Bresler & Reiner, Inc.



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of Bresler
& Reiner, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned officers of the Company, certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



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



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



May 13, 2004



By:

/s/    Sidney M. BreslerSidney M. Bresler Chief Executive OfficerBy:

/s/    Darryl M. EdelsteinDarryl M. Edelstein Chief Financial Officer
# 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 THREE

UNION POLICIES AND INTERNAL ACTIONS

UNION POLICIES AND INTERNAL ACTIONS

TITLE XXIII

CIVIL PROTECTION

CIVIL PROTECTION

Article 196

1.   The Union shall encourage cooperation between Member States in order to improve the effectiveness of systems for preventing and protecting against natural or man-made disasters.

Union action shall aim to:

| (a) | support and complement Member States' action at national, regional and local level in risk prevention, in preparing their civil-protection personnel and in responding to natural or man-made disasters within the Union; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

support and complement Member States' action at national, regional and local level in risk prevention, in preparing their civil-protection personnel and in responding to natural or man-made disasters within the Union;

| (b) | promote swift, effective operational cooperation within the Union between national civil-protection services; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

promote swift, effective operational cooperation within the Union between national civil-protection services;

| (c) | promote consistency in international civil-protection work. |
| --- | --- |

(c)

promote consistency in international civil-protection work.

2.   The European Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure shall establish the measures necessary to help achieve the objectives referred to in paragraph 1, excluding any harmonisation of the laws and regulations of the Member States.

---
##### 



EXHIBIT 21


SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT


|                                      |  |                             |  |                                          
|------------------------------------- |  | --------------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------
|                                      |  | State of                    |  |                                          
|Name of Subsidiary                    |  | Incorporation/Organization  |  | Name under which Subsidiary does Business
|                                      |  |                             |  |                                          
|CHW LLC                               |  | Delaware                    |  | CHW LLC                                  
|Providence Insurance Company, Limited |  | A Bermudian Company         |  | Providence Insurance Company, Limited    
|CatoSouth LLC                         |  | North Carolina              |  | CatoSouth LLC                            
|Cato of Texas L.P.                    |  | Texas                       |  | Cato of Texas L.P.                       
|Cato Southwest, Inc.                  |  | Delaware                    |  | Cato Southwest, Inc.                     
|CaDel LLC                             |  | Delaware                    |  | CaDel LLC                                
|CatoWest LLC                          |  | Nevada                      |  | CatoWest LLC                             
|Cedar Hill National Bank              |  | A Nationally Chartered Bank |  | Cedar Hill National Bank                 
|catocorp.com, LLC                     |  | Delaware                    |  | catocorp.com, LLC                        

49
# QuarterlyShipmentVolumesbyOrigi
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 8002** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v.

CLIFTON J. TUCKER , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Richmond

. Robert E. Payne , Senior District Judge. ( 3:09

- cr
- 00373

- REP

- 1 )

Submitted : May 22, 2014 Decided: May 28, 2014

Before TRAXLER , Chief Judge , and HAMILTON and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judges

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Clifton J. Tucker , Appellant Pro Se. Michael Arlen Jagels, Special Assistant U nited S tates Attorney , Stephen Wiley Miller, Assistant U nited S tates Attorney , Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Clifton J. Tucker appeals the district court ’ s order denying relief on his motion for reduction in sentence pursuant

to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2012). We have reviewed the record and

find no reversible error. Accordingl y, we affirm for the
reasons stated by the district court

. United States v. Tucker ,
No. 3:09

- cr
- 00373

- REP

- 1 (E.D. Va. Sept. 11, 2013). We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Conrado Pons, Appellant.

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lawrence Bernstein, J.) rendered May 7, 1987, convicting defendant, after jury trial, of three counts of murder in the second degree, and sentencing him to three concurrent terms of from 25 years to life imprisonment, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant Pons and co-defendant Anthony Morgan, were convicted of the deaths of three individuals in an arson fire at a numbers betting parlor at 1625 Weschester Avenue in the Bronx. Pons, who was in charge of "enforcement” for a large numbers operation, recruited the People’s main witness, William Diaz, to carry out the crime. Diaz in turn recruited the co-defendant Anthony Morgan to actually set the fire.

The tape recorded conversation of September 20, 1985, in which the defendant assured Diaz that the authorities had no evidence to link them to the arson, and offered Diaz $4,000 to leave New York, sufficiently corroborated Diaz’ testimony so as to sustain the conviction. (CPL 60.22 [1].) "The corroboration need not, as must circumstantial evidence, lead exclusively to the inference of the defendant’s guilt.” *(People v Morhouse,*21 NY2d 66, 74.)

In view of the fact that defense counsel at trial did not object to either the prosecutor’s questioning of Diaz regarding his agreement with the authorities, or to the comment reprising the question on summation, it is clear that the issue was not preserved for appellate review. (CPL 470.05.) Furthermore, defendant failed to move pursuant to CPL 440.10 for a post-conviction hearing so that an adequate record for review could *423be established. *(People v Charleston,*54 NY2d 622.) In any event, there is no reason to review the claim in the interest of justice.

The prosecutor’s summation was reviewed by this Court on the appeal of co-defendant Morgan, and after review herein is again found to be proper. *(See, People v Morgan,*172 AD2d 312.) The only new argument made here, to wit, that the prosecutor improperly argued that if Diaz were telling the truth with respect to his friend Morgan, he must be telling the truth with respect to defendant, whom he had not known long, was to some extent responsive to the defense counsel’s argument concerning Diaz, credibility and in any event without prejudicial effect in view of the curative instructions given by the trial court *(People v Berg,*59 NY2d 294). Concur— Milonas, J. P., Ross, Asch, Kassal and Smith, JJ.

19
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           1,138
<SECURITIES>                                     2,612
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,368
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                10,584
<PP&E>                                          28,719
<DEPRECIATION>                                (15,929)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  23,374
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,593
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            58
<OTHER-SE>                                      19,723
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    23,374
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,412
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    6,628
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,216)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,216)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.21)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.21)


</TABLE>
[4910-13-P]

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT ATION Federal Aviation Administration

(DOT). 14CFR Part 39 

### .=, IV· 

## I+td~Vl
IT 1-

## 2.5-10 (Docket No. FAA-1009-1107; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-t38-AD; Amendmcn ~S"'MIIOI. 

# ~ )'oW - 04 08' -Ai.~.I'40d~ weYlf-dowfJ 

# -7 39-*****; AD 2010-**_H] "'-=I(i 

### 110202. Z-OIO-()Lj-{)9 C. RIN 2120-AA64 m Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A330-200 

### Series Airplanes and Model A340-200 and -300 Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department ofTransportation
ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: We are adopting anew airworthiness directive (AD) forthe products liste above. This ADresults from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MeAl) originated by an aviation authority ofanother country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on anaviation product. The MeAl describes the unsafe condition as:



## * * * 

## * * * * lATE [European Aviation Safety Agency (EASi\)] AD 2006-0191 [which corresponds to FAA AD 2006-21-08] required the installation ofnew heat shield panels with drainage over the airconditioning packs in orderto avoid an undetected fire inthis zone following afuel leak from the centre 

### larue Olin"" S"'MJIOl ~ITIAl..','sIG

"TIIAl.SISKJ
#### CENTURIAN CORPORATION, and Richard H. Nickles, Individually, Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. RYBERG, McCOY & HALGREN, a Professional Corporation, Robert Ryberg, Individually, John L. McCoy, Individually, and Leon A. Halgren, Individually, Defendants and Appellants.

No. 15629.

Supreme Court of Utah.

Dec. 21, 1978.

Bryce E. Roe of Roe & Fowler, Salt Lake City, for Ryberg & McCoy.

Gary A. Frank, Robert W. Miller, Salt Lake City, for Leon Halgren.

James R. Brown of Jardine & Baldwin, Salt Lake City, for plaintiffs and respondents.

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from a judgment requiring the defendant legal firm to refund an alleged $10,000 “retainer” and a $5,000 “bonus,” plus costs, interest, etc. incident to a claim for service rendered.

The firm had represented Centurian, a boat manufacturer for many years and its President, Nickles, personally. When Cen-turian’s plant burned down Nickles was charged with arson, and was successfully defended by the firm which also pursued and recovered $160,000 on an insurance policy.

Shortly after the fire Nickles and Ryberg discussed a fee arrangement and both conceded the fee was to be $35 per hour for a specified time and $40 per hour thereafter. Nothing was reduced to writing, but such an agreement was confirmed by the complaint Centurian subsequently filed against Ryberg and his associates which alleged the facts stated above. The pleading was admitted in Ryberg’s answer, thus confirming such agreement.

The “retainer” and “bonus” are the bones of contention here. Centurian’s Board of Directors by resolution transferred its property to Ryberg’s firm to “secure payment of all legal fees” and expenses incurred by the firm in connection with the fire. Some time thereafter the firm mortgaged the property, without Nickles’ knowledge, and applied the mortgage loan funds on its books as a credit on the fees, and without any consent by Nickles as the court later found. In fact it was without any mutual assent since Ryberg, in claiming a “reasonable” fee over and above the hourly rate, claimed there was no express contract for the additional charge of $15,000 by way of a “retainer” and “bonus.” Ryberg assigned as reason for such extra charge, a quasi-contractual or quantum meruit basis, be*717cause of the firm’s success in exonerating Nickles from the arson charge and its recovery on the insurance policy.

In a memorandum the trial court conceded that the extra fee would have been a “reasonable” one, but based his decision, which we consider to be sound, on an express contract that covered the admitted hourly rate but which totally lacked any consensual authority for any additional compensation, concluding as follows:

> Since the defendants had an agreed hourly figure they cannot claim a reasonable fee, but rather would be limited to the hourly rate.

The judgment is affirmed with costs on appeal awarded to respondents.

CROCKETT, J., does not participate herein.
CHRISTOPHER W. NORRIS,

 Appellant,

v.

STATE, DEPARTMENT OF 

REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT 

ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM and 

NATALIE THERESA LAU,

 Appellees.

_______________________________/

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED.

CASE NO. 1D14-4770

Opinion filed April 15, 2015.

An appeal from an order of the Department of Revenue.

Christopher W. Norris, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Toni C. Bernstein, Senior Assistant 

Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of appellee’s amended confession of error, the final 

administrative support order on appeal is REVERSED and the matter is 

REMANDED to the lower tribunal for further administrative proceedings.

WOLF, BENTON, and RAY, JJ., CONCUR.
#### Joe Earl RODGERS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.

No. F-75-769.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

June 18, 1976.

Rehearing Denied July 27, 1976.

Terry L. Meltzer, Tulsa, for appellant.

Larry Derryberry, Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

BUSSEY, Judge.

Appellant, Joe Earl Rodgers, was convicted of the crime of Possession of Marijuana, With Intent to Distribute in the District Court, Tulsa County, Case No. CRF-74 — 2684. Appellant waived his right to a jury trial and the case was submitted for decision at a non-jury trial, upon a stipulation by both sides that the trial testimony would be the same as presented at the preliminary hearing, and all objections were preserved; sentence being set at five (5) years imprisonment.

A timely appeal has been perfected to this Court, raising two assignments of error as to the insufficiency of the Affidavit for Search Warrant and that the Affidavit for Search Warrant was not properly attested to. A review of the record and testimony of preliminary hearing, fails to sustain these assignments of error.

Where a careful reading of the record, and a study of the briefs, reveal no error that would justify modification or reversal, this Court may affirm said judgment and sentence by summary order, or brief statement or by opinion, as the Court *90may see fit, as is prescribed by statute. See, 20 O.S.1971, § 49, and *Ford v. State,*Okl.Cr., 447 P.2d 454 (1968).

Therefore, the judgment and sentence of the trial court is hereby,

AFFIRMED.

BRETT, P. J., specially concurs.

BLISS, J., concurs.

BRETT, Presiding Judge

(specially concurs).

While the date the informer visited defendant’s house is not shown on the affidavit for search warrant, the surveillance established by the officers resulted in sufficient probable cause to justify issuance of the search warrant. Therein lies the distinction between the instant case and *Griffin v. State,*Okl.Cr., 503 P.2d 567 (1972).