alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Document Number: Revision: 

Previous Number:

Section/Area:

 Date:

Notes:

Using Software to Estimate Relative Potency

CVB-SOP-0102 03

CVBSOP0102.03

CVB-SOP

25 Feb 2023

CVB-Released
April 10, 2001

23263

#### Barnett v. Department of Public Safety, State of Hawai‘i

Dismissed
September 18, 2012

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

BASIC ENERGY SERVICES, INC D/B/A BES HOLDING COMPANY, Appellant

NO. 14-11-00566-CV V.

BAKER HUGHES INCORPORATED, BAKER HUGHES OILFIELD OPERATIONS,

INC., AND EOG RESOURCES, INC, Appellees

________________________________

Today the Court heard the parties’ joint motions to vacate the judgment signed by 

the court below on March 31, 2011. Having considered the motions and found them

meritorious, we order the judgment VACATED AND REMAND the cause to the trial 

court for proceedings in accordance with this Court’s opinion. 

We further order that each party shall pay its costs by reason of this appeal.

We further order that mandate be issued immediately.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
IV 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 499 

Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to allow Delegates 

and the Resident Commissioner to file, sign, and call up discharge petitions. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 27, 2015 

Mr. PIERLUISI (for himself, Ms. NORTON, and Ms. BORDALLO) submitted the 

following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Rules 

RESOLUTION 

Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to 

allow Delegates and the Resident Commissioner to file, 

sign, and call up discharge petitions. 

1 Resolved, That clause 2 of rule XV of the Rules of 

2 the House of Representatives is amended as follows: 

3 (1) In paragraph (b), after ‘‘Member’’ each 

4 place it appears insert ‘‘, Delegate, or Resident 

5 Commissioner’’. 

6 (2) In paragraph (c), after ‘‘Member’’ insert ‘‘, 

7 Delegate, or Resident Commissioner’’ and after 

8 ‘‘Members’’ each place it appears insert ‘‘, Dele9 gates, or Resident Commissioner’’. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 499 IH 

1 (3) In the fifth sentence of paragraph (c), after 

2 ‘‘a majority of the total membership of the House’’, 

3 insert ‘‘, plus all Delegates and the Resident Com4 missioner,’’. 

5 (4) In paragraph (d)(1), after ‘‘Member’’ insert 

6 ‘‘, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner’’. 

7 (5) In paragraph (e)(2), after ‘‘Member’’ insert 

8 ‘‘, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner’’. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           9,021
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  108,190
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (234)
<INVENTORY>                                     47,621
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               170,460
<PP&E>                                          79,249
<DEPRECIATION>                                (27,422)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 242,764
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          167,205
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            34
<OTHER-SE>                                      35,365
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   242,764
<SALES>                                        567,578
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               567,578
<CGS>                                          518,955
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  580,514
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,824
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     -
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,215
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (15,310)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,383
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (11,756)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (22,320)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.77)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        -
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.20 - 2001 OFFICER BONUS PLAN

Exabyte Corporation has adopted a 2001 Officer Bonus Plan under which all executive officers are awarded cash bonuses based on Exabyte's operating results. The respective bonus payments are calculated with reference to the actual pre-tax income
results as measured against the 2001 Operating Plan presented and approved at the Board of Directors meeting on January 19, 2001. The pre-tax income level is measured prior to any accruals reflecting Exabyte's bonus payments. No profit bonus will be paid
for achievement of 50% or less of the planned objective. At 100% achievement, 100% of the profit bonus will be paid. If the 2001 Operating Plan is fully achieved, 200% of the executive's bonus will be paid. If Exabyte shows a profit in its year-end
results, 150% of bonus will be paid. If Exabyte is profitable for both the third and fourth quarters, 100% of bonus will be paid. If Exabyte is profitable for the fourth quarter only, 50% of bonus will be paid. No bonus will be paid if Exabyte shows no
profitability in fiscal 2000.
Accountants' Consent



The Board of Directors
Checkers Drive-In Restaurants, Inc.

We consent to incorporation by reference in the current report on Form 10-K of
Rally's Hamburgers, Inc. of our report dated February 27, 1998, with respect to
the consolidated balance sheets of Checkers Drive-In Restaurants, Inc. and
subsidiaries as of December 29, 1997 and December 30, 1996, and the related
consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity, and cash flows for
each of the years in the three-year period ended December 29, 1997, which report
appears in the current report on Form 10-K of Checkers Drive-In Restaurants,
Inc.



                                                     /s/ KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP
                                                     -------------------------
                                                         KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP

Tampa, Florida
March 30, 1998
Exhibit 32.1







STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In connection
with the Annual Report of Premier Community Bankshares, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that based on their knowledge and belief:  1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) 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 as of and for the periods covered in the Report.







/s/ Donald L. Unger

Donald L. Unger



President & Chief Executive Officer





/s/ Frederick A. Board



Frederick A. Board

Chief Financial Officer







Date: 3/8/05
#### Wirfs v. Wirfs

20562, 21209

10/30/98

Vacated & Remanded
Attorneys for Appellant

Susan K. Carpenter

Public Defender of Indiana

Ruth Johnson

Deputy Public Defender

Indianapolis, Indiana

Attorneys for Appellee

Jeffrey A. Modisett

Attorney General of Indiana

Christopher L. LaFuse

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

	IN THE

	INDIANA SUPREME COURT

JEFFREY HAZZARD,

	Appellant (Defendant below),

	v.

STATE OF INDIANA,

	Appellee (Plaintiff below).

)

)	Supreme Court No.

)	18S05-9802-PC-103

)

)	Court of Appeals No.

)	18A05-9611-PC-484

)

)

)

	APPEAL FROM THE DELAWARE SUPERIOR COURT

	The Honorable Richard A. Dailey, Judge

	Cause No. 18D02-9210-CF-73

	ON PETITION TO TRANSFER

May 6, 1998

SULLIVAN,  Justice.

	In accordance with our decision today in State v. Mohler, No. 87S01-9709-PC-497 (Ind. May 6, 1998), we conclude that the new rule of law announced in Bryant v. State, 660 N.E.2d 290 (Ind. 1995), cert. denied, 117 S.Ct. 293 (1996), is not retroactive under Daniels v. State, 561 N.E.2d 487 (Ind. 1990), and so does not entitle Jeffrey Hazzard to post- conviction relief.

Background

	On October 9, 1992, the State charged Jeffrey Hazzard (“Hazzard”) with possession

of cocaine,1 carrying a handgun without a license,2 resisting law enforcement,3 and being a habitual offender.4  On February 11, 1993, the Indiana Department of Revenue assessed Hazzard a Controlled Substance Excise Tax (“CSET”).5  The trial court entered a judgment of civil forfeiture against Hazzard for $5671.47 and his handgun on March 4, 1993.  On

August 3, 1993, a jury convicted Hazzard on all charges.  This Court affirmed Hazzard’s

convictions on direct appeal.  Hazzard v. State, 642 N.E.2d 1368 (Ind. 1994).  Hazzard did not petition the U.S. Supreme Court for certiorari.6

	On July 22, 1996, Hazzard filed a petition for post-conviction relief claiming that his

conviction for possession, assessment of the CSET, and civil forfeiture of his handgun

violated double jeopardy protections.  The post-conviction court denied Hazzard’s petition. 

Hazzard appealed.  In a memorandum decision, the Court of Appeals reversed the post-

conviction court’s denial of relief, holding that the post-conviction court erred in not

applying retroactively the rule announced in Bryant, 660 N.E.2d 290  (holding that because CSET is punishment, the Double Jeopardy Clause bars criminal prosecution for the

underlying drug offense after CSET has been assessed).7  Hazzard v. State, No. 18A05-9611- PC-484 (Ind. Ct. App. Dec. 30, 1997).

Conclusion

	Having granted transfer, we vacate the opinion of the Court of Appeals pursuant to

Ind.Appellate Rule 11(B)(3) and affirm the post-conviction court’s denial of relief for the

reasons set forth in State v. Mohler, No. 87S01-9709-PC-497 (Ind. May 6, 1998), also decided today.

SHEPARD, C.J., and DICKSON, SELBY, and BOEHM, JJ., concur.
# C_2018152EN.01002201.xml

| 30.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 152/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 152/22

---

Action brought on 12 March 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Slovenia

(Case C-188/18)

(2018/C 152/27)

Language of the case: Slovenian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Ondrůšek, G. von Rintelen, M. Žebre)

Applicant:

Defendant: Republic of Slovenia

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that, by not having adopted the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2014/23/EU of the European Parliament and the Council of 26 February 2014 on the award of concession contracts (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 1) by 18 April 2016 or, in any event, by not having communicated those provisions to the Commission, the Republic of Slovenia has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 51 of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by not having adopted the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2014/23/EU of the European Parliament and the Council of 26 February 2014 on the award of concession contracts (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 1) by 18 April 2016 or, in any event, by not having communicated those provisions to the Commission, the Republic of Slovenia has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 51 of that directive;

| — | order the Republic of Slovenia to pay a penalty payment, under Article 260(3) TFEU, in the sum of EUR 8 992,32 per day, as from the day of delivery of the Court’s judgment in the present case; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Republic of Slovenia to pay a penalty payment, under Article 260(3) TFEU, in the sum of EUR 8 992,32 per day, as from the day of delivery of the Court’s judgment in the present case;

| — | order the Republic of Slovenia to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Republic of Slovenia to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In accordance with Article 51 of Directive 2014/23/EU of the European Parliament and the Council of 26 February 2014 on the award of concession contracts, the Republic of Slovenia should have adopted and communicated the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with that directive by 18 April 2016. Since the Republic of Slovenia did not notify the Commission, before the expiry of that deadline, that it has transposed all the provisions of that directive, the Commission decided to refer the case to the Court.

By its action, the Commission asks the Court to order the Republic of Slovenia to pay a penalty of EUR 8 992,32 per day. In calculating that amount, the Commission took into consideration the seriousness and the duration of the infringement of EU law, as well as the deterrent effect in relation to the ability of the Member State concerned, namely the Republic of Slovenia, to pay.

The deadline for the transposition of the Directive expired on 18 April 2016.

---
# C_2023045EN.01003405.xml

| 6.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/34

---

Order of the General Court of 28 November 2022 — Cortina and FLA Europe v Commission

(Case T-127/18) (1)

(2023/C 45/51)

Language of the case: Dutch

The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 142, 23.4.2018.

---
H. Res. 744 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

May 25, 2016. 

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall 

be in order to consider in the House the bill (S. 2012) to provide for the modernization of the energy policy of the United 

States, and for other purposes. All points of order against 

consideration of the bill are waived. An amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee 

Print 114–55 shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as 

amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order 

against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The 

previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, 

as amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final 

passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of 

debate equally divided among and controlled by the chair and 

ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and 

Commerce and the chair and ranking minority member of the 

Committee on Natural Resources; and (2) one motion to commit with or without instructions. 
2 

•HRES 744 EH 

SEC. 2. If S. 2012, as amended, is passed, then it shall 

be in order for the chair of the Committee on Energy and 

Commerce or his designee to move that the House insist on 

its amendment to S. 2012 and request a conference with the 

Senate thereon. 

SEC. 3. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 

order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 5233) to repeal 

the Local Budget Autonomy Amendment Act of 2012, to 

amend the District of Columbia Home Rule Act to clarify the 

respective roles of the District government and Congress in 

the local budget process of the District government, and for 

other purposes. All points of order against consideration of 

the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read. All 

points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. The 

previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 

and on any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform; 

and (2) one motion to recommit. 

SEC. 4. On any legislative day during the period from 

May 27, 2016, through June 6, 2016— 

(a) the Journal of the proceedings of the previous day 

shall be considered as approved; and 
3 

•HRES 744 EH 

(b) the Chair may at any time declare the House adjourned to meet at a date and time, within the limits of 

clause 4, section 5, article I of the Constitution, to be announced by the Chair in declaring the adjournment. 

SEC. 5. The Speaker may appoint Members to perform 

the duties of the Chair for the duration of the period addressed by section 4 of this resolution as though under clause 

8(a) of rule I. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
#### The Univis Lens Co., Appellee, *v.*United Electrical Radio & Machine Workers of America et al., Appellants.

(No. 31970

Decided December 21, 1949.)

*423*Messrs. Smith, Schnacke & Compton,*for appellee.

*Messrs. Davis, Davis é Handelman,*for appellants.

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., Matthias, Hart, Zimmerman, Stewart, Turner and Taet, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>
 
                                  Exhibit 11

                       Computation of Earnings Per Share
<PAGE>
 
                                  EXHIBIT 11

     COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE ON PRIMARY AND FULLY DILUTED BASES

                               Ameriana Bancorp

<TABLE> 
<CAPTION> 
                                                                               Year Ended December 31
                                                                   --------------------------------------------
                                                                      1996             1995            1994
                                                                     ------           ------          ------
                                                                                  (In thousands)

<S>                                                                <C>              <C>             <C> 
Average Shares Outstanding:
  Net income...................................................    $ 2,403,505      $ 3,237,371     $ 4,711,594
  Average number of common shares outstanding..................      3,335,813        3,511,257       3,542,592
  Earnings per average shares outstanding (1)..................    $       .72      $       .92     $      1.33

Primary:
  Net income...................................................    $ 2,403,505      $ 3,237,371     $ 4,711,594
  Average number of common shares outstanding..................      3,335,813        3,511,257       3,542,592
  Add incremental shares:
    Stock option...............................................         16,667           38,761          54,608
                                                                   -----------      -----------     -----------
  Adjusted average shares......................................      3,352,480        3,550,018       3,597,200
  Primary earnings per share (1)...............................    $       .72      $       .91     $      1.31

Fully Diluted:
  Net Income...................................................    $ 2,403,505      $ 3,237,371     $ 4,711,594
  Average number of common shares outstanding..................      3,335,813        3,511,257       3,542,592
  Add incremental shares:
    Stock options..............................................         27,568           44,176          57,675
                                                                   -----------      -----------     -----------
  Adjusted average shares......................................      3,363,381        3,555,433       3,600,267
  Fully diluted earnings per share (1).........................    $       .71      $       .91     $      1.31
</TABLE> 

----------------
(1)     Due to the immaterial difference between primary and fully diluted
        earnings per share and earnings per average share outstanding, earnings
        per average share outstanding only is disclosed.

  The above per share calculations reflect the 4 for 3 stock split declared 
                               in February 1996.
H. Res. 546 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

December 3, 2015. 

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall 

be in order to consider the conference report to accompany 

the bill (H.R. 22) to authorize funds for Federal-aid highways, highway safety programs, and transit programs, and 

for other purposes. All points of order against the conference 

report and against its consideration are waived. The conference report shall be considered as read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the conference report 

to its adoption without intervening motion except: (1) one 

hour of debate; and (2) one motion to recommit if applicable. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
United States Department of Agriculture 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

WS Directive 2.440 03/01/04

LIVESTOCK GUARDING DOGS

1. PURPOSE 

To provide guidelines for the activities of WS personnel relating 

to the use of livestock guarding dogs for protecting livestock 

from predation. 

2. REPLACEMENT HIGHLIGHTS 

This directive revises WS Directive 2.440 dated 01/05/99. 

3. POLICY 

All WS field personnel will be knowledgeable in the use and 

application of livestock guarding dogs. WS field personnel will 

assist producers who may be interested in using livestock 

guarding dogs by providing information and/or referring them to a 

WS guarding dog specialist for further assistance. Livestock 

guarding dogs are generally owned and managed by the livestock 

producer and are recognized by WS as useful for reducing 

predation. 

WS specialists must be cautious when working near or around 

guarding dogs to minimize potential hazards from applied 

management methods. 

Deputy Administrator