alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A21E0042. WILLIAM CASH v. TORI ROZELL.

William Cash has filed an emergency motion for supersedeas, under Court of

Appeals Rule 40 (b), to stay the lower court order on a petition for stalking temporary

protective order pending appeal. This Court’s Rule 40 (b) emergency powers are

limited and intended to be used sparingly. Rule 40 (b) provides, in relevant part, that

we may only “issue such orders or give direction to the trial court as may be necessary

to preserve jurisdiction of an appeal or to prevent the contested issue from becoming

moot.” 

In this case, Cash has an existing appellate remedy, and, upon review of the

submitted material, this Court finds that an emergency order of supersedeas is not

warranted. Accordingly, Cash’s emergency motion is hereby DENIED. 

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

April 20, 2021

04/20/2021
#### John Ira TURNER et al., Appellants, v. Granville C. FARMER et al., Appellees.

No. 7023.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Texarkana.

Jan. 21, 1958.

*891T. D. Wells, Paris, for appellant.

B. Ray Smith, Paris, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Final judgment was signed and entered in the trial court in this case on April 27, 1957. Two of the defendants, filed separate motions for new trial on May 3, 1957; none of the several other defendants made any effort whatever to appeal. The motions for new trial were presented to and heard by the judge of the trial court on June 15, 1957. An order was signed and entered overruling the motions for new trial on June 24, 1957. The 45-day period of time for the trial court’s action on the motion for new trial, provided by Rule 329-b, Secs. 3 and 4, Vernon’s Ann. Texas Rules of Civil Procedure (formerly Rule 330(j) expired on June 17, 1957; no written agreement of the parties for extension of time beyond that date to act on the motions appears in the record. The motions for new trial were actually overruled by operation of law on June 17, 1957; and, the order signed by the trial court after that time was a nullity. Martinez v. Stephens, Tex.Civ.App., 246 S.W.2d 7.07, no wr. hist.; Texas Van Lines, Inc., v. Templeton, Tex.Civ.App., 305 S.W.2d 646, wr. ref., n. r. e. No appeal bond was filed in the case, but on July 22, 1957, two of the defendants deposited the sum of $132.60 with the clerk of the court in lieu of cost bond and on July 29, 1957, deposited the sum of $67.40. The time having expired on July 17, 1957, in which to file an appeal bond or make cash deposit in lieu thereof, the judgment of the trial court became final on that date.

The appeal not being perfected within the time prescribed by law, this court does not have jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. Ellison v. Panhandle & S. F. Ry. Co., Tex.Civ.App., 306 S.W.2d 909. The appeal is dismissed.
# Euroopa Liidu C 340/2016

| | ISSN 1977-0898 |
| --- | --- |
| Euroopa Liidu
  Teataja | C 340 |
| | |
| Eestikeelne väljaanne | Teave ja teatised | 59. köide16. september 2016 |

ISSN 1977-0898

Euroopa Liidu

Teataja

C 340

Eestikeelne väljaanne

Teave ja teatised

59. köide16. september 2016

---

| Teatis nr | Sisukord | Lehekülg |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Teave |
| | TEAVE EUROOPA LIIDU INSTITUTSIOONIDELT, ORGANITELT JA ASUTUSTELT |
| | Euroopa ParlamentNõukogu |
| 2016/C 340/01 | Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu 14. septembri 2016. aasta määrusele (EL) 2016/1627 (milles käsitletakse Atlandi ookeani idaosas ja Vahemeres hariliku tuuni varude taastamise mitmeaastast kava ning millega tunnistatakse kehtetuks nõukogu määrus (EÜ) nr 302/2009) lisatav komisjoni avaldus | 1 |

Teatis nr

Sisukord

Lehekülg

IV   Teave

TEAVE EUROOPA LIIDU INSTITUTSIOONIDELT, ORGANITELT JA ASUTUSTELT

Euroopa ParlamentNõukogu

2016/C 340/01

Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu 14. septembri 2016. aasta määrusele (EL) 2016/1627 (milles käsitletakse Atlandi ookeani idaosas ja Vahemeres hariliku tuuni varude taastamise mitmeaastast kava ning millega tunnistatakse kehtetuks nõukogu määrus (EÜ) nr 302/2009) lisatav komisjoni avaldus

1

---

| ET | |
| --- | --- |

ET

---

IV Teave

TEAVE EUROOPA LIIDU INSTITUTSIOONIDELT, ORGANITELT JA ASUTUSTELT

Euroopa Parlament Nõukogu

| 16.9.2016 | ET | Euroopa Liidu Teataja | C 340/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.9.2016

ET

Euroopa Liidu Teataja

C 340/1

---

Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu 14. septembri 2016. aasta määrusele (EL) 2016/1627 (milles käsitletakse Atlandi ookeani idaosas ja Vahemeres hariliku tuuni varude taastamise mitmeaastast kava ning millega tunnistatakse kehtetuks nõukogu määrus (EÜ) nr 302/2009) (1) lisatav komisjoni avaldus

(2016/C 340/01)

Komisjon väljendab muret selle pärast, et temale kaasseadusandjate delegeeritud piiratud volitused võivad takistada ICCATi poolt tulevikus võetavate meetmete rakendamist õigel ajal ELi õigusesse, millega vaadatakse läbi või ajakohastatakse kõnealuse organisatsiooni kontrollisüsteem.

Seepärast esitab komisjon oma arvamuse, et kõnealune määrus ei piira institutsiooni mis tahes tulevast positsiooni seoses abi otsimisega ELi toimimise lepingu artiklite 290 ja 291 alusel piirkondliku kalandusorganisatsiooni meetmete ülevõtmiseks.

Lisaks sellele jätab komisjon endale õiguse esitada ettepanekuid määruse muutmiseks, millega suurendatakse meetmete arvu, mis tuleks vastu võtta delegeeritud või rakendusaktidega juhul, kui seadusandliku tavamenetluse alusel ülevõtmisega kaasnevad viivitused, mis ohustaksid ELi suutlikkust täita rahvusvahelisi kohustusi.

---

(1)  ELT L 252, 16.9.2016, lk 1

---
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AUGUST 21, 2014

NO. 03-12-00837-CR

Shaun David Samuelson, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 427TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, ROSE, AND GOODWIN

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE ROSE

This is an appeal from the judgment entered by the trial court. Having reviewed the record and 

the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the trial court’s

judgment. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment. Because appellant is indigent 

and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs is made.
**EXHIBIT 32**

 

**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 ofInterbank Capital Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Anthony N. DeMint, President and Chief Accounting Officer of the Company, 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 results of operations of the Company. |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

| /s/ Anthony N. DeMint                                  |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

Anthony N. DeMint

President and Chief Accounting Officer

November 6, 2006
Supplemental Deed of Assignment



 Exhibit 4.38 
  
 This Supplemental Deed of Assignment is made on May 14, 2004 between: 
  

	(1)	ChipMOS TECHNOLOGIES INC., a company incorporated under the laws of the Republic of China (the “Vendor”); and 

  

	(2)	ChipMOS TECHNOLOGIES (Bermuda) LTD., a company organized under the laws of Bermuda (the “Purchaser”). 

  
 Whereas 
  

	(A)	The Vendor and the Purchaser have entered into the Deed of Assignment dated as of December 17, 2003 (the “Deed of Assignment”), pursuant to which the Vendor assigned to
the Purchaser its entire interest in the Note. 

  

	(B)	This Supplemental Deed of Assignment is supplemental to the Deed of Assignment. 

  
 NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed by the parties hereto as follows: 
  

	1	Definitions 

  
 Capitalised terms used in this Supplemental Deed of Assignment but not defined herein shall have the meanings given to them in the Deed of Assignment.

  

	2	Incorporation by Reference 

  
 Except as otherwise provided herein, the terms of the Deed of Assignment shall apply to this Supplemental Deed of Assignment as if they were set out
herein and the Deed of Assignment shall be read and construed as one document with this Supplemental Deed of Assignment. 
  

	3	Amendment to Deed of Assignment 

  
 Article 2 of the Deed of Assignment shall be deleted and replaced with the following: 
  
 “The Purchase Price shall be paid in full no later than September 30, 2004 to the Vendor through wire transfer to the
bank account as designated by the Vendor.” 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Supplemental Deed of Assignment has been executed as of the day and year first above set
forth. 
  

			
	ChipMOS TECHNOLOGIES INC.
		
	 By:
	 	 /s/ Shih-Jye Cheng


	 Name:
	 	 Shih-Jye Cheng

	 Title:
	 	 Chairman

	
	ChipMOS TECHNOLOGIES (Bermuda) LTD.
		
	 By:
	 	 /s/ Hung-Chiu Hu


	 Name:
	 	 Hung-Chiu Hu

	 Title:
	 	 Chairman


  

 - 2 -
AMENDMENT TO
                                STOCK OPTION PLAN
                       SAFEGUARD HEALTH ENTERPRISES, INC.

                      (As amended through October 25, 2000)


SafeGuard  Health  Enterprise, Inc., (the "Company") a corporation organized and
existing under the laws of the state of Delaware, herby adopts this amendment to
the Company's Stock Option Plan, (the "Plan") as stated below.  The stockholders
of the Company approved the following amendment to the Plan at a Special Meeting
of  Stockholders  held  on  October  25, 2000.  Article II, Section 2.1 - Shares
Subject  to  the  Plan,  is  hereby  amended  as  follows:

Section  2.1  -  Shares  Subject  to  the  Plan
------------     ------------------------------

          The  shares  of  stock  subject  to  Options  shall  be  shares of the
Company's  authorized  common  stock  ("Common Stock").  The aggregate number of
such  shares,  which  may  be issued over the term of the Plan, shall not exceed
3,000,000.  The total number of shares issuable from time to time under the Plan
shall  be  subject  to  periodic adjustment in accordance with the provisions of
Section  2.3  below.

          Should  an Option expire or terminate for any reason prior to exercise
or  surrender  in  full,  the shares subject to the portion of the Option not so
exercised  or  surrendered shall be available for subsequent Option grants under
the  Plan.  Shares  subject  to  any  Option  or  portion thereof surrendered in
accordance with Section 7.10 of the Plan and all share issuances under the Plan,
whether  or not such shares are subsequently repurchased by the Company pursuant
to its repurchase rights under the Plan, shall reduce on a share-for-share basis
the  number  of  shares  of  Common Stock available for subsequent Option grants
under  this Plan.  In addition, should the option price of an outstanding Option
under the Plan be paid with shares of Common Stock, then the number of shares of
Common Stock subsequently available for issuance under the Plan shall be reduced
by  the gross number of shares for which the Option is exercised, and not by the
net  number  of  shares  of  Common  Stock  actually  issued  to  the  Optionee.

We  hereby certify theta the above amendment to the Plan was duly adopted by the
Stockholders  of  the Company and by the Board of Directors of the Company as of
October  25,  2000.

Executed  at  Aliso  Viejo,  California  on  the  25th  day  of  October  2000.


/s/  James  E.  Buncher                      /s/ Ronald  I.  Brendzel
-----------------------                      -----------------------
JAMES  E.  BUNCHER                           RONALD  I.  BRENDZEL
President and Chief Executive Officer        Senior Vice President and Secretary


                                  Exhibit 10.5
                                       -1-
<PAGE>