alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### G. J. LUCCHESE et al., Appellants, v. Charles SPECIA, Appellee.

No. 18214.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

Aug. 10, 1955.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 7, 1955.

*726Park Street, Bobbitt, Brite & Bobbitt, San Antonio, for appellants.

Peter Briola, San Antonio, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellee has filed a motion to affirm on certificate because appellants did not file their appeal bond within thirty days after their amended motion for a new trial was overruled by operation of law, Rule 356, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure; and did not file the record in this Court or a proper motion for extension of time within the period prescribed by Rule 386.

The record shows that appellants’ amended motion for a new trial was overruled by operation of law on May 1, 1955. Rule 329-b, T.R.C.P.; Dallas Storage & Warehouse Company v. Taylor, 124 Tex. 315, 77 S.W.2d 1031. The order entered by the trial judge on June 7, 1955, purporting to overrule appellants’ amended motion for a new trial was therefore a nullity,

 Appellants’ appeal bond was not filed within the thirty-day period allowed by Rule 356, T.R.C.P., and consequently no appeal was perfected. This Court never acquired jurisdiction of this appeal and our prior action in granting an extension of time to file the record is accordingly set aside. Because of a lack of jurisdiction, we are likewise without authority to affirm the judgment of the trial court upon certificate, Rule 387, T.R.C.P. Appellee’s motion to affirm is overruled and the attempted appeal dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
#### STATE OF CONNECTICUT *v.*MICHAEL STINSON

(14132)

Dupont, C. J., and SchaUer and Spear, Js.

Argued December 13, 1996

decision released January 23, 1996

*Robert G. Golger,*special public defender, for the appellant (defendant).

*SusannE. Gill,*assistant state’s attorney, with whom, on the brief, were *Donald A. Browne,*state’s attorney, and *Stephen J. Sedensky III,*assistant state’s attorney, for the appellee (state).

PER CURIAM.

The judgment is affirmed.
EXHIBIT 18.1











April 3, 2013





The Board of Directors


PVH Corp.


200 Madison Avenue


New York, NY 10016





Dear Directors:





Note 1 of Notes to the consolidated financial statements of PVH Corp. included in its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended February 3, 2013 describes changes in the methods of accounting for actuarial gains and losses and the calculation of the market-related value of plan assets related to its pension and other postretirement benefit plans.  The change in method of recognizing actuarial gains and losses is from a minimum amortization method to an immediate recognition method. The change in method of calculating the market-related value of plan assets is from a calculated value that reflects changes in the fair value of plan assets over five years to fair value. There are no authoritative criteria for determining a 'preferable' method of recognizing actuarial gains and losses or determining the market-related value of plan assets based on the particular circumstances; however, we conclude that such changes in methods of accounting are to acceptable alternative methods which, based on your business judgment to make these changes and for the stated reasons, are preferable in your circumstances.





Very truly yours,











/s/Ernst & Young LLP


New York, NY
# Official Journal C 390/21 O

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 390 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5921 October 2016 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 390

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5921 October 2016

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2016/C 390/01 | Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (
  1
  ) | 1 |
| 2016/C 390/02 | Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (
  2
  ) | 8 |

Notice No

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2016/C 390/01

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (
  1
  )

1

1

2016/C 390/02

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (
  2
  )

2

8

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |
| | (2)   Text with EEA relevance, except for products falling under Annex I of the Treaty |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

(2)   Text with EEA relevance, except for products falling under Annex I of the Treaty

2

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

The Board of Directors
OSI Pharmaceuticals, Inc.:

     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements
on Forms S-3 (No. 333-110938) and on Forms S-8 (No. 333-91118, 333-65072, No.
333-42274, No. 333-39509, No. 333-06861, No. 33-64713, No. 33-60182, No.
33-38443, and No. 33-8980) of OSI Pharmaceuticals, Inc. of our report dated
November 29, 2004, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of OSI
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and subsidiaries as of September 30, 2004 and 2003, and
the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity and cash
flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended September 30, 2004,
which report appears in the September 30, 2004 annual report on Form 10-K of OSI
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

     As discussed in Note 1 (b) to the consolidated financial statements, the
Company adopted EITF 00-21 "Revenue Arrangements with Multiple Deliverables" in
2004.

     As discussed in notes 1(j) and 8 to the consolidated financial statements,
the Company fully adopted the provisions of Statement of Financial Accounting
Standards No. 142, "Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets" in 2003.

     As discussed in notes 10 to the consolidated financial statements, the
Company early adopted Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 145
"Rescission of FASB Statements No. 4, 44 and 64, Amendment of FASB Statement No.
13, and Technical Corrections" relating to the classification of the effect of
early debt extinguishments in 2002.

                                          /s/ KPMP LLP

Melville, New York
December 13, 2004
EXHIBIT 31

                        CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION
                          302 OF THE SARBANES OXLEY ACT


<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 31

                        CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION
                          302 OF THE SARBANES OXLEY ACT


I, Kexi Xu, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Global Assets &
Services, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material 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 misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures as of September 30, 2004; and

c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):

a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's
auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

<PAGE>

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
quarterly report whether there were significant changes in internal controls or
in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to
the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date:  November 22, 2004


/s/ Kexi Xu
---------------------
Kexi Xu,
President, CEO, & CFO
**EXHIBIT 10.42**

PHILLIPS-VAN HEUSEN CORPORATION

2006 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN

PERFORMANCE SHARE AWARD AGREEMENT
#### John Wesley FINLEY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27601.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 11, 1955.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

Dan Walton, Dist. Atty., Eugene Brady, Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty., Houston, Leon Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

MORRISON, Presiding Judge.

The offense is burglary, with three prior convictions alleged to enhance the punishment; the punishment, life imprisonment.

Mrs. Birmingham testified that she awoke on the afternoon in question and saw the appellant leaving her apartment, that she investigated and determined that $175 in money, a billfold, and a cigarette lighter were missing from her purse. She testified further that she identified the appellant at a police lineup sometime later and that the cigarette lighter and billfold which had been stolen were returned to her by the police.

Mrs. Shannon, the landlady, testified that she saw the appellant leave the apartment house in question on the afternoon of the theft and observed that he was carrying something under his shirt.

Officer Christian testified that he arrested the appellant sometime after the burglary and that the appellant told him that the property which he had taken in the burglary was in his dresser drawer, that he looked in the drawer and found *k*billfold and a cigarette lighter, and that he returned the same to Mrs. Birmingham when she identified them as being her property.

Appellant’s identity as being the person who had been convicted in the three prior cases alleged for enhancement purposes was established.

The appellant and his witnesses testified that he had attended a picnic given for the employees of Guido’s on the afternoon in question.

The State offered two witnesses on rebuttal who testified that the Guido picnic had been held on another date rather than the day charged in the indictment.

The jury resolved the disputed issue of fact against the appellant, and we find the evidence sufficient to support the conviction.

Only one bill of exception appears in the record. It complains because the court permitted counsel for the State to read the entire indictment, including the prior convictions alleged for enhancement purposes, to the jury before the appellant’s plea was received and before the proof on the primary offense was adduced.

Recently, in our opinion on motion for rehearing in Redding v. State, Tex.Cr.App., *865265 S.W.2d 811, we disposed of this identical contention. We adhere to the rule therein expressed.

Finding no reversible error, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
#### Jerry JENKINS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27319.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 19, 1955.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

PER CURIAM.

The former opinion in this case is withdrawn.

*414Since the filing of his motion for rehearing appellant has presented his personal affidavit wherein he moves to dismiss his appeal.

The motion is granted, the affirmance is set aside, and the appeal is now dismissed.
7/28/2015 Request for Information ­ FAA­2015­1896

https://email.dot.gov/owa/9­AWA­AVS­333Exemptions@faa.gov/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAABFvqQJAFf5SI8crGhIsEIyBwD3qfMUO7BCQ74YBi9P12... 1/1

Request for Information ­ FAA­2015­1896

9­AWA­AVS­333Exemptions (FAA)

Sent:Tuesday, July 28, 2015 10:43 AM

To: stephenbair@gmail.com

Dear Mr. Bair:

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA­2015­1896).

This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your petition.

Describe the aircraft make, model, and type (i.e., fixed‐wing, rotorcraft, lighter‐than‐air) for the proposed UAS

operation. The description should include the maximum weight (including payload). This information can be

located in the aircraft manual.

Provide a copy of the Motion Picture and Television Operations Manual (MPTOM) which is required by Order

8900.1, Volume 3, Chapter 8, Section 1. If you wish for us to proceed without this manual and remove

closed‐set filming from your proposed operation please inform of us of your intention by the requested

response date listed below.

Please submit the additional information (non‐proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov and submit any

proprietary information to the FAA Headquarters or electronically via email to 333exemptions@faa.gov. If you want

us to process your request any further, we must receive the information described above by 8/11/15. If we do not

receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267­9677.

Sincerely,

Dan Ngo

FAA Office of Rulemaking
EXHIBIT 4.2

    

    URSTADT BIDDLE PROPERTIES INC.

    

    

    FIRST AMENDMENT TO

    AMENDED AND RESTATED RESTRICTED STOCK AWARD PLAN

    

    

      WHEREAS, the Board of Directors (the “Board”) and stockholders of Urstadt Biddle Properties Inc. (the “Company”) adopted the Amended and Restated Restricted Stock Award Plan as
        of March 24, 2016 (the “Plan”);

    

    

    WHEREAS, Section 12 of the Plan permits the Board and/or the Compensation Committee of the Board to
        modify or amend the Plan to increase the maximum number of shares of restricted stock that may be awarded under this Plan, but only if such increase is approved by stockholders of the Company;

    

    

    WHEREAS, on December 12,
          2018, the Board approved an amendment to the Plan to increase by 1,000,000 shares the maximum number of shares of restricted stock that may be issued or transferred under the Plan for a total of 5,500,000, of which 350,000 shares shall be
        Common Stock, 350,000 shares shall be Class A Common Stock and the remaining shares, at the discretion of the Compensation Committee administering the Plan, shall be any combination of Common Stock or Class A Common Stock (the “Amendment”);
        provided, however, that any such increase in the number of shares of restricted stock that may be issued or transferred under the Plan shall be subject to, and shall not become effective until, the stockholders of the Company have approved such
        change; and

    

    

     WHEREAS, on March 21, 2019, stockholders of the Company approved the Amendment.

    

    

    NOW, THEREFORE, the following amendment and modification is hereby made a part of the Plan, effective
        March 21, 2019:

    

    

    
      	
              1.

            	
               Section 5 of the Plan shall be, and hereby is, deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:

            


    

    

    

    “5. Shares subject to the Plan

     

    The maximum number of shares of Restricted Stock that may be issued or
        transferred under the Plan is 5,500,000, of which 350,000 shares shall be Common Stock, 350,000 shares shall be Class A Common Stock and 4,800,000 shares, at the discretion of the Committee, shall be any combination of Common Stock or Class A
        Common Stock.  Any shares of Restricted Stock which have been awarded, but are later forfeited to the Company, will again be available for Awards under the Plan.

     

    The Restricted Stock that may be issued or transferred under the Plan may be
        authorized but unissued Shares or Shares acquired by the Company and held in its Treasury as determined by the Committee.”

    

    

    
      	
              2.

            	
              In all other respects, the Plan, as amended, is hereby ratified and confirmed and shall
                  remain in full force and effect.

            


    

    This Amendment has been adopted by the Board of Directors of the Company as of December 12, 2018,
        subject to approval by stockholders of the Company, which was received on March 21, 2019.
# MORRIS AERIAL IMAGERY, LLC

PRE-FLIGHT CHECKLIST*

HULL AND PROPELLORS All hull screws are securely fastened to the body of the UAS. All propellers are securely fastened to the motors. Transmitters and accompanying wires are securely fastened to the hull. Camera(s), gimbal(s), and accompanying wires are securely fastened to the hull. There are no loose parts, wires, screws, or extremities that can fall from the UAS. Operators Notes:



### SAFETY CHECK The operator performed a visual review of the area of operation. The operator is aware of aerial obstructions (i.e., poles, structures, utility wires, trees). The operator is not within 3-miles of an airport. The operator clearly marked a take-off/landing zone with 4 orange caution cones. The operator has clearly announced that a UAS is preparing for flight. The operator has ensured no persons or animals are near the caution zone. Weather permits the safe operation of the UAS (i.e., little to no wind, no precipitation, If working in pairs, the second operator has a pair of binoculars to maintain line of sight Operators Notes:



### POWER TO SYSTEM The battery being placed into the UAS has a full capacity charge. The batteries inside the RC controller have a sufficient charge. There is a spare UAS battery with a full charge. There are spare batteries for the RC controller with a full charge. The UAS battery is securely fastened within the UAS hull The UAS powers up completely indicating a normal audible chime of operability. All lights on the UAS are operating normally. Operators Notes:



### RC/WIFI/FPV CONNECTIVITY There is a steady connection between the RC controller and the UAS. There is a steady connection between the video transmitter and the FPV receiver. The UAS is responding accurately and efficiently to RC commands. Video equipment is responding accurately and efficiently to FPV commands. FPV OSD is operational.
RC Controller is set to GPS and HL and CL modes are both turned off.
Operators Notes:



### SATELLITE CONNECTIVITY UAS is indicating full satellite/GPS connectivity.
UAS has set the “home” location. Following take-off, UAS successfully completes a 10-second unassisted hover.
Operators Notes:

UAS Operator’s Signature : ___________________________ Date: ____________________

* All UAS Operators must perform this pre-flight checklist prior to every respective flight.
UNITED STATES


SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Washington, D.C. 20549




_____________________________




FORM 8-K




CURRENT REPORT




Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the




Securities Exchange Act of 1934











Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported)


February 28, 2012








PVH CORP.




(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)







Delaware
001-07572
13-1166910(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation)
(Commission File Number)
(IRS Employer Identification No.)200 Madison Avenue, New York, New York
10016(Address of principal executive offices)
(Zip Code)







Registrant’s telephone number, including area code  (212)-381-3500




Not Applicable


(Former name or former address, if changed since last report.)







Check the appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to simultaneously satisfy the filing obligation of the registrant under any of the following provisions:




 ̈  Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425)


 ̈  Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12)


 ̈  Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act


(17 CFR 240.14d-2(b))


 ̈  Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act


(17 CFR 240.13e-4(c))
















ITEM 2.02                      RESULTS OF OPERATIONS AND FINANCIAL CONDITION






ITEM 7.01                      REGULATION FD DISCLOSURE






On February 28, 2012, PVH Corp. (the “Company”) issued a press release announcing that it expects its earnings per share for the fourth quarter and the full year 2011 to be at least at the high end of its guidance ranges previously announced on January 11, 2012 and expects its earnings per share for the full year 2012 to be at least at the high end of its previously announced preliminary guidance, also announced on January 11, 2012.  A copy of the press release is attached as Exhibit 99.1 to this report.






The information in this Form 8-K and the Exhibit attached hereto shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or otherwise subject to the liabilities of that section, nor shall it be deemed incorporated by reference in any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.











ITEM 9.01                      FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND EXHIBITS




(d)  Exhibits.




Exhibit
Description99.1
Press Release, dated February 28, 2012.



































SIGNATURES






Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned hereunto duly authorized.













PVH CORP.













By: /s/ Mark D. Fischer


Mark D. Fischer, Senior Vice President











Date: February 28, 2012









Exhibit Index







Exhibit
Description99.1
Press Release, dated February 28, 2012.
United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 12-1131

JOSEPH DELONG,

Petitioner, Appellant,

v.

THOMAS DICKHAUT,

Respondent, Appellee.

ERRATA SHEET

The opinion of this Court issued on May 6, 2013 is amended as

follows:

On page 4, line 2, change "December 1, 2012" to "December 1,

2011".

On page 4, line 3, change "December 21, 2012" to "December 21,

2011".

On page 4, line 5, change "December 1, 2012" to "December 1,

2011".