alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# FILED
February 16, 1999 Cecil W. Crowson Appellate Cou rt Clerk IN THE COURT OF CRIMINA L APPEALS OF T ENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE SEPTEMBE R SESSION, 1998

STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) C.C.A.NO. 01C01-9710-CC-00499 ) Appellee, ) ) COFFEE COUNTY V. ) ) HON . GER ALD L. E WEL L, SR., ) JU DGE LEO NARD HUS TON PRAT ER, JR ., ) ) Appe llant. ) (DUI, THIRD OFFE NSE)

CONCURRING OPINION As to the first issue, I ag ree with the author that the merger of the offenses, imposing only one sente nce, eliminated the double jeopar dy problem. Otherwise, State v. Denton , 938 S.W.2d 373 (Tenn. 1996), would have pr ecluded dual convictions.

In Denton , our supreme court observed that "[t]he key issue in multiple punishment cases is legis lative intent." 938 S.W.2d at 379. The court s uggested a Blockburger

analysis as the first step: [W]here the same act or transa ction constitutes a violation of two disti nct statutory provisions, the test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one is whether e

ach provision requi res proof of an additional fact which the other does not. Denton , 938 S.W .2d at 379 (quot ing Blockburger v. Uni ted States , 284 U.S. 299, 304 (1932)).2 Because each section of the DUI statute contains dif ferent elements, the Blockburger

test would not preclude dual convictions. Blockburger , however, "is not conclusive." Denton , 938 S.W.2d at 379. Courts must also consider whether the same evidence is used to prove both offenses. Id. at 380. In Duchac v. State , 505 S.W.2d 237 (Te nn. 1973), our supreme court stated the rule as follows:

One test of ide ntity of offens es is whether the same evidence is required to prove them. If the same evidence is not required, then the fact that both charges relate to, and grow out of, one transaction, does not make a single offense where two are defined by the statutes. Denton , 938 S.W .2d at 380 (quot ing Duchac , 505 S.W.2d at 239). Finally, courts should examine other factors r elative to legisla

tive intent: (1) whether there w

ere multiple victims involved; (2) whether sever

al discrete acts wer

e involved; and (3) whether the evil at w

hich each offense is directed is the same or different. Denton , 938 S.W.2d at 381 (f ootnote omitted).

Here, there was a sing le episode of driving und er the influence of alcohol. The same evidence was used to prove both offense s. Moreover, each conviction arose under the same code section of the DUI sta tute, Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-10-401. In my view, the legislative i ntent would permit only one conviction.

_________________________________ Gary R. Wade, Presiding Judge
Exhibit 4.8


 





English
summary of Principal Terms of Lease Agreement, dated March 22, 2015, by and between Mintz K. Construction Company Ltd. (the
“Landlord”), as landlord, and Galmed Research and Development Ltd. (the “Company”), as
tenant (the “Lease”). 


 


The Lease


 


		·	Premises Covered by the Lease: Approximately 356 square meters and 6 parking spaces (not
marked), with an option to rent more parking spaces subject to availability, located in 16 Tiomkin St., Tel Aviv, Israel (the
“Premises”).



 


		·	Permitted Use of Premises: Managing the Company’s and/or its parent company and/or
its subsidiaries offices.



 


		·	Term of Lease: March 22, 2015 to March 21, 2019, provided however that the Company has the
an option to extend the initial term of the lease in additional two years period from March 22, 2019 to March 21, 2021.



 


		·	Fees: Monthly rental fees payable quarterly in an aggregate amount of NIS 49,128 plus VAT
for the period between March 22, 2015 and March 21, 2017 (subject to a two months grace for the first two months of the lease term
and an additional one month grace at the beginning of the second year of the lease term), which shall be increased to a quarterly
amount of NIS 51,090 plus VAT for the period between March 22, 2017 and March 21, 2019. The rental fees are linked to the Israeli
consumer price index of March 2015.






During
the option period, the rental fees will increase to a quarterly amount of NIS 70,761 plus VAT for the period between March 22,
2019 and March 21, 2021.


 


		·	Expenses: The Company bears all customary expenses associated with the use of the Premises,
including, but not limited to, Premises’ management fees.



 


		·	Security: The Company provided the Landlord with (i) an autonomous bank guarantee of
NIS 103,000; and (ii) during the performance of the adjustment work an autonomous bank guarantee of NIS 100,000, both linked
to the Israeli consumer price index.



 


		·	Construction activities: Under the Lease, the Landlord reserved rights to perform construction
activities on the Premises building on its behalf or by other tenants, and the Company agreed to the above, provided such activities
do not prevent reasonable access to the Premises.



 


		·	Modifications of Premises: The Company may modify the Premises
to the extent such modifications are required for adjustment of the Premises for the permitted use, at Company’s cost and
subject to a Landlord’s prior written consent, entering applicable insurance and the provisions of the Security detailed
above, provided that such modifications shall be completed within 6 months of the execution of the Lease Agreement.
Additionally, the Company reserved the right to perform non-material and/or internal modifications
to the Premises which are not related to the Premises infrastructure or have implications on the Premises exterior.
### Please post the Test Report for FCCU Chevron Kapolei Refinery to Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0682 Paula Hirtz to: Docket 12/09/2011 11:12 AM

cc:

Brenda Shine, Eric Goehl

We are providing correspondence from Chevron below to clarify the Test Report for FCCU Chevron Kapolei Refinery was not claimed CBI and therefor e can be made publically available in the above referenced docket. Those reports that were claimed as CBI are being han dled as such, so they will not be submitted for posting to the docket or distribut ed in any way as required by EPA CBI procedures.

Paula Hirtz US Environmental Protection Agency Mail Code E143-01 109 TW Alexander Drive Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 Email: hirtz.paula@epa.gov Direct Line: (919) 541-2618

----- Forwarded by Paula Hirtz/RTP/ USEPA/US on 12/09/2011 11:01 AM -----

From: Heyer, Verle V [mailto:VHEY@chevron.com] Sent: Friday, October 28, 2011 8:23 PM To: Richardson Fry, Carrie Subject: Disclaimer Comments



### Carrie,

The NON-CBI submission for EPA’s ICR Sectio n 114 Component 4 contains a copy of the laboratory report associated with the FCCU stack testing requirement. The report from URS Corporation contains a standa rd laboratory-to-customer disclaimer about the use of the information contained within the report (on the s econd page of the report). A similar disclaimer is documented in Attachment Q in associati on with e-mail communica tions between EPA and URS. These two disclaimers are not intended to be used for the purpose of claiming business confidentiality as allowed by the instructions for component 4 submissions.

Respectfully,

Verle Heyer

Environmental Specialist

Chevron Hawaii Refinery

ph: 808-682-2394
<PAGE>   1

                                   EXHIBIT 11

                   COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31,
                                                        ---------------------------------------
                                                           1997          1996           1995
                                                        ----------    -----------    ----------
<S>                                                     <C>           <C>            <C>
Net income (loss).....................................  $1,895,968    $(1,360,790)   $2,402,247
Convertible debenture interest after tax effect.......          --             --        53,291
                                                        ----------    -----------    ----------
Income (loss) available to common stockholders........  $1,895,968    $(1,360,790)   $2,455,538
                                                        ==========    ===========    ==========
Weighted average common shares outstanding............   6,690,265      4,579,598     3,874,459
                                                        ----------    -----------    ----------
Common equivalent shares representing shares issuable
  upon exercise of stock options......................     292,103        194,883       196,773
Convertible Preferred Stock...........................          --        553,858            --
Convertible Debentures................................          --             --       595,000
Antidilutive nature of dilutive securities............          --       (748,741)           --
Dilutive adjusted weighted average shares and assumed
  conversions:........................................   6,982,368      4,579,598     4,666,232
                                                        ----------    -----------    ----------
Basic net income (loss) per share.....................  $     0.28    $     (0.30)   $     0.62
                                                        ==========    ===========    ==========
Diluted net income (loss) per share...................  $     0.27    $     (0.30)   $     0.53
                                                        ==========    ===========    ==========
</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I,
Donald C. Grenesko, the Senior Vice President/Finance and Administration of Tribune Company, certify that (i) Tribune Company's Form 10-K for the year ended
Dec. 26, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in the
Form 10-K for the year ended Dec. 26, 2004 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and the results of operations of Tribune Company.

| |  | /s/DONALD C. GRENESKODonald C. Grenesko
Senior Vice President/
Finance and Administration
March 4, 2005
| |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

119

---



QuickLinks
EXHIBIT 23
                                                                ----------

               CONSENT OF LAZAR, LEVINE & FELIX LLP

        We consent to the incorporation by reference of our report
dated January 19, 2006 with respect to the consolidated financial
statements and notes thereto of Touchstone Applied Science
Associates, Inc. included in its Annual Report (Form 10-KSB) for
the fiscal year ended October 31, 2005 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission into (i) the Company's Registration
Statement on Form S-3 (SEC File No. 333-27659), (ii) the Company's
Registration Statement on Form S-8 (SEC File No. 333-424), (iii)
the Company's Registration Statement on Form S-3 (SEC File No. 333-
75377), (iv) the Company's Registration Statement on Form S-8 (SEC
File No. 333-110156), (v) the Company's Registration Statement on
Form S-8 (SEC File No. 333-110157), and (vi) the Company's
Registration Statement on Form SB-2 (SEC File No. 333-129261).

                     LAZAR, LEVINE & FELIX LLP

New York, New York
January 30, 2006
Amendment No. 1 to 2002 Equity Incentive Plan



 Exhibit 10.14 
  
 AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE 
 HURON CONSULTING GROUP INC. 
 2002 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN 
  
 This Amendment No. 1 to the Huron Consulting Group Inc. 2002 Equity Incentive
Plan (the “Plan”) is effective as of May 16, 2003. 
  
 W
I T N E S S E T H: 
  
 WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 14(a) of the
Plan, the Board of Directors of Huron Consulting Group Inc. (the “Board”) may amend the Plan; and 
  
 WHEREAS, the Board has determined to amend the Plan; 
  
 NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is amended as follows: 
  

	1.	Section 3 of the Plan is hereby amended and restated in its entirety as follows: 

  

	 	3.	SHARES SUBJECT TO PLAN. 

  
 Subject to adjustment as provided in this Section 3, the aggregate number of Shares that may be awarded or made subject to Awards under the Plan shall not
exceed 3,028,500 Shares. 
  
 To the extent any Shares covered by
an Award are not delivered to a Participant or beneficiary thereof because the Award expires, is forfeited, canceled or is otherwise terminated, the maximum number of Shares available for delivery under the Plan shall be automatically reduced by the
number of such Shares, and such Shares shall then be made available for grants of Awards under the Huron Consulting Group Inc. 2003 Equity Incentive Plan. 
  
 In the event of a merger, consolidation, reorganization, recapitalization, stock split, stock dividend, extraordinary dividend, or other similar change in
the structure or capitalization of Company, the Administrator may make, in its sole discretion, an appropriate adjustment to the (a) number and kind of Shares or other securities, cash or property that may be delivered under the Plan, (b) number and
kind of Shares or other securities, cash or property subject to outstanding Awards, (c) exercise price of outstanding Equity Options and Equity Appreciation Rights and (d) other characteristics or terms of the Awards as the Administrator may
determine appropriate to equitably reflect such transaction, change, or distribution.
#### COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS, Appellant, v. H. D. CHENAULT et al., Appellees.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Nov. 1, 1963.

John B. Breckinridge, Atty. Gen., William A. Lamkin, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Larry C. West, Frankfort, for appellant.

Jesse S. Hogg, Winchester, for appellees.

PALMORE, Judge.

In Commonwealth of Kentucky, Department of Highways v. Wilkins, Ky., 320 S.W.2d 125 (1959), it was held that if one party, in appealing to the circuit court from a county court judgment pursuant to KRS 177.087, has filed a certified copy of the county court judgment, failure of the other party to file a copy of the same judgment with his separate appeal thereafter filed is not fatal to the latter appeal.

In this case the landowners appealed first, but failed to file with their statement of parties and exceptions a copy of the county court judgment as required by KRS 177.087. Thereafter and within thirty days following the date of the county court judgment the condemnor also appealed. The condemnor’s appeal was sufficient in all respects, including the filing of a certified copy of the county court judgment. The sole question is whether the filing of the copy by the condemnor as a part of its appeal cured the defect in the landowners’ appeal. Our conclusion is that it did.

It is suggested that the condemnor could have nullified the appeal of the landowners by dismissing its own, a stratagem that ought not be required or encouraged. But we do not accept the premise. That one party may cure another’s omission does not imply a converse conclusion that he may *949later “uncure” it. In any event, the con-demnor did not in fact dismiss its appeal, and we express this dictum only because it may serve to clarify the matter in future -cases.

The judgment is affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In  connection  with  the  Annual  Report  of  Dalrada  Financial Corporation, a
Delaware  corporation  (the  "Company"), on Form 10-KSB for the year ending June
30,  2004,  as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"),
I,  Brain  Bonar, Chief Executive Officer of the Company do each hereby certify,
pursuant  to   906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.   1350), that to
the  best  of  my  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  result  of operations of the Company.

/s/Brian  Bonar
---------------

Brian  Bonar
Chief  Executive  Officer
October  13,  2004
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET, CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS, AND
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS INCLUDED IN THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-K
FOR THE PERIOD ENDING DECEMBER 31, 1999, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          11,582
<SECURITIES>                                    89,130
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,068
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                34,325
<PP&E>                                          20,472
<DEPRECIATION>                                   8,938
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 118,272
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           32,619
<BONDS>                                         42,866
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            38
<OTHER-SE>                                      42,749
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   118,272
<SALES>                                         33,824
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                60,787
<CGS>                                           18,470
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   85,120
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,793
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (20,050)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        14
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (20,064)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (20,064)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.53)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.53)


</TABLE>
#### John Samuel THOMAS, Jr., Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

June 15, 1956.

Robert W. Zollinger, Louisville, for appellant.

Jo M. Ferguson, Atty. Gen., Zeb A. Stewart, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

MILLIKEN, Chief Justice.

This is an appeal by John Samuel Thomas, Jr., a juvenile offender, from his conviction in the Jefferson Circuit Court of the crime of robbery. His punishment was fixed at two years in the penitentiary.

Appellant was not indicted for robbery, but rather for forcibly demanding money from another person with intent to rob, which is one means of committing the crime of assault with intent to rob denounced by KRS 433.150. The punishment authorized under this statute ranges from twenty-one years in the penitentiary to life or death.

.The punishment authorized by KRS 433.120 for robbery is two to ten years in the penitentiary. The jury was instructed that robbery was a lesser degree of the crime of assault with intent to rob, apparently because the punishment authorized for robbery is less severe. We have recently held, however, that robbery is not a degree of the crime of assault with intent to rob. Adams v. Commonwealth, Ky.1954, 264 S.W.2d 283. Therefore, the conviction must be reversed.

We note from the record the procedure in transferring appellant, a juvenile, from the jurisdiction of the county court to the circuit court for indictment by the grand jury, was irregular. This will, no doubt, be corrected in the event appellant is prosecuted anew. KRS Chapter 208; Vanhoose v. Commonwealth, Ky., 264 S.W.2d 72.

The judgment is reversed.
----

Exhibit 32.1

**CERTIFICATION 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 Quarterly Report of Magic Media Networks, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the three months ending January 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Gordon Scott Venters, President, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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; and

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

Date: March 22, 2004

| /s/ Gordon Scott Venters                                                                                    |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                                                             |
| Gordon Scott Venters           Principal Executive Officer and           Acting Principal Financial Officer |
II

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 635

To amend title 10, United States Code, to provide uniformity in the criteria

and procedures for retiring general and flag officers of the Armed Forces

of the United States in the highest grade in which served; and for

other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 28 (legislative day, MARCH 27), 1995

Mrs. HUTCHISON (for herself, Mr. NUNN, Mr. THURMOND, and Mr. GRAHAM)

introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the

Committee on Armed Services

A BILL

To amend title 10, United States Code, to provide uniformity

in the criteria and procedures for retiring general and

flag officers of the Armed Forces of the United States

in the highest grade in which served; and for other

purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•S 635 IS

1 SECTION 1. UNIFORM CRITERIA AND PROCEDURES FOR

2 RETIRING GENERAL AND FLAG OFFICERS IN

3 HIGHEST GRADE IN WHICH SERVED.

4 (a) APPLICABILITY OF TIME-IN-GRADE REQUIRE5 MENTS.—Section 1370 of title 10, United States Code, is

6 amended—

7 (1) in subsection (a)(2)(A), by striking out

8 ‘‘and below lieutenant general or vice admiral’’; and

9 (2) in the first sentence of subsection (d)(2)(B),

10 by striking out ‘‘and below lieutenant general or vice

11 admiral’’.

12 (b) REPEAL OF REQUIREMENTS FOR SENATE CON13 FIRMATION.—Sections 1370(c), 3962(a), 5034, and

14 8962(a) of title 10, United States Code, are repealed.

15 SEC. 2. TECHNICAL AND CLERICAL AMENDMENTS.

16 (a) REDESIGNATION OF SUBSECTIONS.—(1) Sub17 section (d) of section 1370 of such title is redesignated

18 as subsection (c).

19 (2) Sections 3962(b) and 8962(b) of such title are

20 amended by striking out ‘‘(b) Upon’’ and inserting in lieu

21 thereof ‘‘Upon’’.

22 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections

23 at the beginning of chapter 505 of such title is amended

24 by striking out the item relating to section 5034.
3

•S 635 IS

1 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE FOR AMENDMENTS TO PROVISION

2 TAKING EFFECT IN 1996.

3 The amendments made by sections 1(a)(2) and 2(a)

4 shall take effect immediately after subsection (d) of sec5 tion 1370 of title 10, United States Code, takes effect.

Æ