alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

JUDGMENT

Weldon Boyce Bridges, Appellant

No. 06

- 12

- 00109

- CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee Appeal from the 159th District Court of Angelina County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. CR

27979 ). Opinion delivere d by Chief Justice Morriss, Justice Carter and Justice Moseley participating.

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 co urt

. We note that the appellant, Weldon Boyce Bridges, has adequately indicated his inability

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

RENDERED APRIL 11, 2014
BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III
CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
**EXHIBIT 21**

 

**SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT**

 

**Parent**

 

FirstFinancial Service Corporation

 
| ** **                                      | ** ** | **State of** | ** ** | **Percentage** | ** ** |
|-------------------------------------------------|------------|-------------------|------------|----------------|------------|
| **Subsidiaries**                                | ** ** | **Incorporation** | ** ** | **Owned**      | ** ** |
|                                            |       |              |       |           |       |
| First Federal Savings Bank of Elizabethtown     |       | Kentucky          |       | 100            | %          |
|                                            |       |              |       |           |       |
| First Service Corporation of Elizabethtown  (a) |       | Kentucky          |       | 100            | %          |
|                                            |       |              |       |           |       |
| First Heartland Mortgage of Elizabethtown  (a)  |       | Kentucky          |       | 100            | %          |
|                                            |       |              |       |           |       |
| First Federal Office Park, LLC (a)              |       | Kentucky          |       | 100            | %          |

 

----

(a)           Wholly-owned subsidiaries of First FederalSavings Bank of Elizabethtown.

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AND STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                      24,871,000
<SECURITIES>                                 8,880,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            45,053,000
<PP&E>                                       1,338,000
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,192,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              46,826,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       18,728,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  3,500,000
<COMMON>                                        43,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  24,223,000<F1>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                46,826,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            24,754,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               11,248,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             19,956,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                19,956,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.47
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.46

<FN>
<F1> Additional paid-in-capital - $274,011,000
     Accumulated deficit - $(249,802,000)
     Accumulated other comprehensive income - $14,000
</FN>

</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, *v.*Anthony Pavia, Appellant.

County Court, Schenectady County,

June 22, 1959.

*Albert G. Bottieri*for appellant.

*Morris Marshall Cohn, District Attorney (Stanley G. Grabichi*of counsel), for respondent.

Archibald C. Wemple, J.

It appears from the reargument that the only new point raised was that the defense counsel contended that this court, on the original appeal, was not given an opportunity to examine the exhibits used on the original trial and that, therefore, this court, on the appeal, could not decide the case with inadequate information.

This court finds that the exhibits were described in sufficient detail to indicate that gambling activities were being engaged in by the defendant above-named. Naturally, it would have been more convincing to have examined the exhibits in more detail.

The other arguments, namely that the police officer, George Morris, was not proven to be an expert; that the tape recording constituted hearsay evidence; that the wire-tap evidence was in violation of the Federal law; that the sentences constituted duplicate punishment — all of these were no different from the arguments presented on the original appeal. This court does not feel inclined to change the holdings made in the decision of February 26, 1959 *(People*v. *Pavia,*15 Misc 2d 861). However, on the reargument of the appeal, certain extenuating circumstances concerning the relationship of the defendant to his crippled invalid son have been brought out. These matters may or may not have been within the knowledge of the sentencing Judge in the court below. Letters have been received from a doctor of distinguished reputation in the *740community, from a principal of a local school and from a member of the clergy, all of which indicate that the defendant is needed in the home to care for his crippled son.

Under the circumstances stated and in accordance with section 764 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this court will modify the sentence of the court below by deleting therefrom that part of the sentence of conviction of this defendant of a violation of section 974 of the Penal Law in which the said defendant is directed to serve 30 days in the Schenectady County jail. The said sentence of 30 days is hereby suspended and the defendant is placed on probation with the Probation Department of the County of Schenectady for one year, on the specific condition that he refrain from all illegal activities and will faithfully attend to the needs of his family.

Submit order accordingly.
#### James W. SEEQUIST and Joan W. Seequist, his wife, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. Gladys R. SEEQUIST et al., Defendants and Respondents.

No. 13569.

Supreme Court of Utah.

July 11, 1974.

*599P. Keith Nelson, of Brandt, Miller, Nelson & Christopherson, Salt Lake City, for appellants.

George K. Fadel, Bountiful, for respondents.

HENRIOD, Justice:

Appeal to review the dismissal of plaintiffs’ complaint and defendants’ counterclaim and quieting title to the properties involved in defendant Gladys R. Seequist. Affirmed. No costs awarded.

Plaintiffs James W. and Joan W. See-quist are husband and wife. James is the son of defendants A. W. Seequist and Gladys R. Seequist and the half-brother of Jean M. King. On March 27, 1973, Gladys executed a warranty deed on property to James and Joan Seequist. The deed was properly recorded April 6, 1973. On April 2, 1973, Gladys executed a warranty deed on the same property to Jean M. King, which deed was properly recorded the same day.

The trial court found that Gladys did not have the mental capacity to comprehend the effect of the transactions. We think appellants have failed to show an abuse of discretion of the court absent a clear showing of such an abuse.

Based on Gladys’ testimony, the trial court found that the requirements necessary to show the existence of a confidential relationship between James and Gladys R. Seequist1 were present when the transactions took place. Counsel for appellants argue that no evidence was presented which would show a reposal of confidence by Gladys in James, but we think her testimony which was relied upon by the trial court clearly reflects such confidence.

The court found that, as fiduciary and a person having confidential relationship with Gladys, James had a duty to act fairly, make a disclosure of material information, and to take no unfair advantage of his superior position. We think it was correct in finding that James breached his duty and also in its reliance upon both the extreme disparity between the market value of the property, somewhere between $62,500 and $91,250, and the amount paid by the plaintiff, $28,000, and the fact that plaintiff made no attempt to secure for defendant Gladys any independent advice or representation even though he was aware that she had no independent knowledge of the value of the property involved.

CALLISTER, C. J., and ELLETT, CROCKETT and TUCKETT, JJ., concur.

1

. See Bradbury v. Rasmussen, 16 Utah 2d 378, 401 P.2d 710 (1965).
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 192 (Friday, October 3, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 59739]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-23593]

========================================================================
Notices
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains documents other than rules 
or proposed rules that are applicable to the public. Notices of hearings 
and investigations, committee meetings, agency decisions and rulings, 
delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency 
statements of organization and functions are examples of documents 
appearing in this section.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 192 / Friday, October 3, 2014 / 
Notices

[[Page 59739]]

U.S. AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Senior Executive Service; Membership of Performance Review Board

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice lists approved candidates who will comprise a 
standing roster for service on the Agency's 2014 and 2015 SES 
Performance Review Boards. The Agency will use this roster to select 
SES board members, and an outside member for the convening SES 
Performance Review Board each year. The standing roster is as follows:

Allen, Colleen
Broderick, Deborah
Cappozola, Christa
Chan, Carol
Crumbly, Angelique
Detherage, Maria Price
Feinstein, Barbara
Foley, Jason
Jenkins, Robert
Kolmstetter, Elizabeth
Kramer, Douglas
Kuyumjian, Kent
Leavitt, William
Martin-Wallace, Valencia, Outside SES Member
McNerney, Angela
Mitchell, Reginald
Miranda, Roberto
Pascocello, Susan
Peters, James
Romanowski, Alina
Sampler, Donald
Schmipp, Michele
Vera, Mauricio
Walther, Mark
Warren, Wade
Webb, Mark
White, Christa

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marvol Edmonds, 202-712-1781.

    Dated: September 29, 2014.
Vanessa D. Prout,
Division Chief, Employee Labor Relations Division.
[FR Doc. 2014-23593 Filed 10-2-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6116-02-P
```
Exhibit 31.1.1**Certification of Chief Executive Officer**Pursuant to Securities Exchange Act Rule 13a-14(a) or Rule 15d-14(a)I, Eric R. Zimmerman, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Dayton Superior Corporation;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial 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 misleadingwith respect to the period covered by this report;  3. [Omitted]  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in ExchangeAct Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have: a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  b) designed such internal control over financial reporting, orcaused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under oursupervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability offinancial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for externalpurposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;  c) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  d) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the caseof an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors: a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information; and  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.     April 14, 2008 /s/ Eric R. Zimmerman         Eric R. Zimmerman
Exhibit 10.18


 


First AMENDMENT
TO Promissory note


 


THIS
FIRST Amendment (THE “FIRST AMENDMENT”) DATED July 27, 2018,
shall amend the Promissory note (THE “NOTE”) dated AS OF FEBRUARY 15,
2018 AMONG NON-INVASIVE MONITORING SYSTEMS, INC. (THE “MAKER”) AND frost
gamma investments trust (THE “PAYEE”) AS NOTED BELOW.


 


RECITALS


 


WHEREAS, Maker and
Payee (collectively, the “Parties”) are parties to the Note which became effective on February 15, 2018; and


 


WHEREAS, the Parties
desire to amend the Note to extend the Maturity Date from July 31, 2018 until July 31, 2020.


 


NOW THEREFORE, in
consideration of the mutual covenants and promises contained in the Note and this First Amendment and other good and valuable consideration,
the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows:


 


AMENDMENT


 


1. Section
1 of the Note is hereby amended and restated in its entirety as follows:


 


The principal amount of the loan evidenced
hereby, together with any accrued and unpaid interest, and any and all unpaid costs, fees and expenses accrued, shall be due and
payable on July 31, 2020 (the “Maturity Date”).


 


2. Governing Law.
This First Amendment shall be governed by the laws of the State of Florida without regard to its conflict of laws rules or principles.


 


3. Amendments. Except
as expressly amended hereby, the Note shall remain unmodified and in full force and effect.


 


4. Entire Agreement.
This First Amendment and the Note constitute the entire agreement of the Parties with respect to the subject matter hereof and
supersede all prior understandings and writings between the Parties relating thereto.


 


5. Interpretation.
Any capitalized terms used in this First Amendment but not otherwise defined shall have the meaning provided in the Note.


 


6. Counterparts.
This First Amendment may be executed manually, electronically in Adobe® PDF file format, or by facsimile by the Parties, in
any number of counterparts, each of which shall be considered one and the same amendment and shall become effective when a counterpart
hereof shall have been signed by each of the Parties and delivered to the other Party.


 



    	 



    	 



     


IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
Borrower has duly executed this First Amendment to the Note and Security Note as of the 27th day of July, 2018.


 


	 	 	 	NON-INVASIVE MONITORING SYSTEMS, INC. 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	By:	/s/ James J. Martin
	 	 	 	Name:	James J. Martin
	 	 	 	Title:	
        Chief Financial Officer

        

	 	 	 	 	 
	Agreed and Accepted:	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	FROST GAMMA INVESTMENTS TRUST	 	 	 
	
         
	 	 	 	 
	By:	/s/ Phillip Frost, M.D.	 	 	 
	Name: 	Phillip Frost, M.D.	 	 	 
	Title:	Trustee
LEAVE

HUNGRY PESTS

BEHIND

United States Department of Agriculture

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

VI

SIT
# OAR Box 

# 1828

Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 222 ) ll-K - (I ) -3 5 Docket Number: 

# A-83-2 7

Printed 11/12/200811:12:56

AM Sheet 222 of 325 P. 1P. 2 

# /A\=f | II-K-(I)-3 5
INDUSTRIA L SECTO R TECHNOLOG YUS E MODE L (ISTUM ) INDUSTRIA L ENERG

YUS E I N TH E U.S . 1974-2000 . EEA , Inc . 

### Octobe r 1979 . THI S INFORMATION

CA N B E FOUNDI

N DOCKE T A-79-02 , ITE

M II-K-(I)-3 5
I would like to request aformal hearing in EIR 

### # 2015S0700062 Premier Nail Source. We feel the proposed settlement is unjust do tothe fact thatthis shipment was accidental and we have taken measures to correctthese actions from futher happening again.

Thanks, Daniel Kerzner Premier Nail Source 5454 west Crenshaw St. 813-390-0700
# C_2018427EN.01001702.xml

| 26.11.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 427/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/17

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 17 September 2018 — Ministère public, Ministre des Finances du Royaume de Belgique v QC, Comida paralela 12

(Case C-579/18)

(2018/C 427/25)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Liège

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants and respondents: Ministère public, Ministre des Finances du Royaume de Belgique

Defendants and appellants: QC, Comida paralela 12

Question referred

Does Article 79 of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the EU Customs Code (1) preclude national legislation, such as that implemented by Article 266 of the General Law of 18 July 1977 on customs and excise duties, in the case of the unlawful importation into the customs territory of the European Union of goods subject to import duties, from making the person civilly liable for the person who has committed that offence — in which the person civilly liable did not participate — jointly and severally liable for the customs debt?

---

(1)  OJ 2013 L 269, p. 1.

---
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Scott D. Howarth, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that the Annual Report of Integrated Silicon Solution, Inc. on Form 10-K/A for the annual period ended September 30, 2014 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
the information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K/A fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Integrated Silicon Solution, Inc.



By:

/s/ Scott D. HowarthScott D. HowarthPresident and Chief Executive OfficerJanuary 27, 2015


I, John M. Cobb, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of Integrated Silicon Solution, Inc. on Form 10-K/A for the annual period ended September 30, 2014 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K/A fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Integrated Silicon Solution, Inc.



By:

/s/ John M. CobbJohn M. CobbVice President and Chief Financial OfficerJanuary 27, 2015
IV 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 357 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the need 

to eliminate partisan redistricting and gerrymandering. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 10, 2015 

Mr. NOLAN submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the need to eliminate partisan redistricting and gerrymandering. 

1 Resolved, 

2 SECTION 1. ELIMINATING PARTISAN REDISTRICTING AND 

3 GERRYMANDERING. 

4 It is the sense of the House of Representatives that— 

5 (1) Congress should establish a Federal re6 apportionment system that would create compact 

7 and contiguous congressional districts that, to the 

8 greatest extent possible, follow geographic bound9 aries and county lines; 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 357 IH 

1 (2) congressional districts should not favor or 

2 disfavor an incumbent or political party; 

3 (3) congressional districts should adhere to the 

4 existing standards of equal population; and 

5 (4) the highest court of each State should have 

6 the power to reject congressional district maps that 

7 do not meet the above criteria. 

Æ 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS