alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 4. 324

 

/Emblem of the Russian Federation/

 

FEDERAL SERVICE FOR SUPERVISION IN THE SPHERE OF COMMUNICATIONS, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND MASS MEDIA

 

LICENSE

 

No. 161221 dated May 07, 2018

 

For Rendering

 

telematic services

 

This License is granted to

 

Public Joint Stock Company

 

Mobile TeleSystems

 

Primary State Registration Number of a Legal Entity 
 (Individual Entrepreneur) (OGRN, OGRNIP)

 

1027700149124

 

Tax Identification Number (TIN)

 

7740000076

 











 

Location address (place of residence):

 

4, Marksistskaya Str., Moscow, 109147

 

The territory covered by telecommunications services is specified in the Appendix.

 

This License is granted for a term:

 

until May 07, 2023.

 

This License is granted by decision of the licensing body - Order dated December 26, 2017 No. 799-рчс

 

Appendix being an integral part of this license is executed on 2 sheets.

 

	
Deputy Head

 
    	
/signature/ O.A.   Ivanov
    
	
Stamp here

Official seal:
    MINISTRY OF TELECOM AND   MASS
   COMMUNICATIONS
   OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
   FEDERAL SERVICE FOR SUPERVISION
   IN THE SPHERE
   OF COMMUNICATIONS, INFORMATION
   TECHNOLOGY
   AND MASS MEDIA
   PSRN 1087746736296
#### GONZALES v. STATE.

No. 26538.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 28, 1953.

No attorney on appeal, for appellant.

Austin F. Anderson, Crim. Dist. Atty., Jack H. Kaufman, Asst. Crim. Dist. Atty., San Antonio, Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

GRAVES, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was convicted of the offense of driving an automobile while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, and his punishment assessed at confinement in the county jail for a period of six months and a fine of $50. He appeals from the judgment therein.

Bill of Exception No. 4 reflects that while appellant was on the stand in his own behalf, he was asked by the Assistant District Attorney the following question: “You have paid fines for being drunk, haven’t you?” To which question the defendant answered that he paid fines; and the Assistant District Attorney then said,. “Several of them.” This question was objected to, as well as its answer, but the court overruled such objection and appellant excepted to such ruling. We think this testimony was erroneously admitted since the appellant was not charged as a second offender.

Bill of Exception No. 5 complains of the closing argument of the Assistant District Attorney in which he stated to the jury in substance “that the defendant by his own admission, was a drunkard; that he had paid fines on several occasions for being drunk, and that he had been seen brought into the City Police Station in a drunk condition as the same was testified to by Lieutenant Ernest Gonzales, an officer of long standing in this community.” This argument was promptly objected to and exception reserved on the ground that the same was highly prejudicial and inflammatory. We think this argument was improper and should not have been made.

*578In Bill of Exception No. 6 appellant complains because of the closing argument of the Assistant District Attorney in which he stated to the jury in substance “ * * that the said Lieutenant Ernest Gonzales knew the defendant very well because the said Jimmy Gonzales was brought into his *office*at the Police Station on numerous occasions in a drunken condition; further that he had seen Jimmy Gonzales when his wife came down to the jail when they had him there for being drunk.” This testimony was promptly objected to and exception reserved to the failure of the court to sustain such objection, same being inadmissible under the charge herein filed.

Because of the errors above set forth, we think this cause has been improperly tried. Therefore, the judgment will be reversed and the cause remanded.
Exhibit 32.1   Certification of the Chief Executive Officer 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 BidGive International, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), James P. Walker, Jr., the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 13a-14(b) or 15d-14(b) and 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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/ James P. Walker, Jr. Chief Executive Officer Date:  May 20, 2008
CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

     IN CONNECTION WITH THE ACCOMPANYING QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-QSB OF
SEGWAY VI CORP. FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30, 2003, DONNY SMITH,
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF SEGWAY IV CORP.
HEREBY CERTIFY PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND
BELIEF, THAT:

     1.   Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30,
          2003, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for
          the period ended June 30, 2003, fairly presents, in all material
          respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Segway
          IV Corp.

Dated:  August 13, 2003

Segway IV Corp.


By: /s/ Donny Smith
-------------------------------------
Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 31.2
CERTIFICATIONS
I, William Garrahan, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of XO Communications,Inc.;
2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements weremade, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;
4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report isbeing prepared;
b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end ofthe period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent function):
a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely 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 or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controlsover financial reporting.
Date: May 10, 2004                                                             /s/   William Garrahan   William Garrahan   Senior Vice President and Acting Chief
|                                                                                                   
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                   
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                     
|View History: Annual                                                                               
|View History: Annual                                                                               
|View History:                                                                                      
|                                                                                                   
|Louisiana Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Louisiana (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                   
|                                                                                                   
|Louisiana Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Louisiana (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                   

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2010's                                                                                                                            |        |        | 4,935  |        | 3,585  | 4,172  | 252    | 4,477  | 3,640  | 6,032 
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 5,597  | 7,611  | 7,344  |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane lunani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T NA T AL I YA KY R YL E NK O, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , Jr ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 12- 70590 A ge nc yN o. A 075- 758- 576 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d S e pt e m be r24, 2013 ** B efo re: R A W L IN S O N , N . R . S M IT H , an dC H R IS T E N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. N a t a l i y aK yry l e nko, ana t i ve and c i t i z e n of U kr a i ne , pe t i t i ons f

orr e vi e w of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ (“ B IA ”) deni alof her m ot i on t o reopen re m ov alproceedi ng s. O ur j uri sdi ct i on i s gov erned b y 8 U . S . C . § 1 25 2. W e r evi ew f o rab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n th e B I A ’s d e n ia l o f am o tio n to r e o p e n . N

ajm ab ad iv. 

# FI LED SEP 26 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS12- 70590 2 H older , 597 F . 3d 983, 986 ( 9th C i r . 2010) . W e de nyi n partand di s m i s s i n partthe p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. T h e B I A d idn o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n in d e n y in g K yry le n k o ’s m o tio n to re o p en as u n ti m ely b ec au se th e m o ti o n w as filedo v erfo u r y ea rs af ter th e B IA ’s f in a l d e c is io n , se e 8 C . F . R . § 1 0 0 3 . 2 (c)(2 ), an dK yryl en k o fai l edt o est ab l i sh m at er i al l y c hang ed ci rc um st ance s i n U krai ne t o q ual i fyfor the re gu l at ory e x c e p tio n to th e tim e lim itatio n s f o rm o tio n s to r e o p e n , se e 8 C. F. R. § 1 0 0 3 .2 ( c ) ( 3 ) ( ii) ; N

ajm abadi , 59 7 F . 3dat98 8-89 (e vi dence of changed ci rc um st ance s m ustbe qu al i t at i vel y di ff er entfr om w hatcoul d h ave been pres ent ed atpri or heari ng ). W e l a c k j ur i s di c t i on t o r e vi e w the B I A ’ s de c i s i on nott o e xe r c i s e i t s s ua s p o n te au th o r ityto r e o p e n p r o c e e d in g s . See Mej i a-H erna ndezv. H

older , 633 F . 3d 81 8, 82 3-24 (9th C i r. 20 11 ). P E T IT IO N F O R R E V IE W D E N IE D i n p art; D IS M IS S E D i n p art.
|                                                             
|-------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                             
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)               
|View History: Annual                                         
|View History: Annual                                         
|View History:                                                
|                                                             
|Montana Natural Gas Number of Oil Wells  (Number of Elements)
|                                                             
|                                                             
|Montana Natural Gas Number of Oil Wells  (Number of Elements)
|                                                             

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2010's                                                                                                                            |        | 1,956  | 2,147  | 2,268  | 2,377  | 2,283  | 2,177  | 2,153  | 4,039  | 4,044 
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 3,895  |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 5/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 6/28/2024
2003 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 4-30-2003 

# U SA v . T e rlin go P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t 02-1640

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2003

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2003 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . T e rl in g o " (2003). 2003 D e cisio n s . P ape r 575. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2003/575IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT

_________________ Nos. 02-1640, 02-1641 and 02-1642

________________ UNITED S TATES OF AMERI CA

v. DOM ENICK TERLIN GO, TA RA TE RLING O, and DOMENIC K L. TERLI NGO Domenick Terlingo, Appellant in No. 02-1640 Tara Terlingo, Appell ant in No. 02-1641 Domenick L. Terlingo, Appell ant in No. 02-1642

___________________________

O R D E R

__________________________ It i s hereby

O R D E R E D that t

he opinion e ntered in the above- entitled appeals on Apri l 23, 2003 i s hereby amended to corr ect the spell ing of the name of NiaLena Caravasos, Esquire, which was spell ed incorr ectl y i n the li sti ng of counsel for the appel lants . The corr ect spel ling, which appears in this order, is subs tit uted for t he prior erroneous spell ing in t

he opinion. For th e Co urt, /s/ Marcia M. Waldron Clerk Dated: April30, 2003
#### Bobble BOYTE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27120.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 27, 1954.

*101J. C. Jacobs, Corsicana, for appellant.

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

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is the possession of whiskey and wine in a dry area for the purpose of sale; the punishment, one day in jail.

Constable Norton and Liquor Control Inspector Sparks testified that they went to the house occupied by the appellant, her husband and her children, armed with a search warrant and that they did not find any liquor in the house but did find some in trash outside the back fence.

Appellant, testifying in her own behalf, denied that she knew anything about the liquor found outside her fence and back of her outhouse.

The record is silent as to the presence of the appellant’s husband at the time of the search.

There is an entire absence of any showing that the appellant exercised any control or management of the liquor in question so as to implicate her rather than her husband.

In Wade v. State, 147 Tex.Cr.R. 613, 183 S.W.2d 576; Gonzales v. State, 143 Tex.Cr.R. 48, 156 S.W.2d 988; Peters v. State, 142 Tex.Cr.R. 146, 151 S.W.2d 592; Watson v. State, 114 Tex.Cr.R. 117, 24 S. W.2d 830; and Smith v. State, 90 Tex.Cr.R. 273, 234 S.W. 893, we have held such evidence insufficient to support the conviction.

The judgment is reversed and the, cause remanded.
Exhibit 10.17

This Amendment is dated December 9, 2008 by and between Rohinton Mobed ("Mobed") and IHS Inc. (the "Company").

WHEREAS, Mobed and the Company entered into an Agreement dated November 30, 2008 (the "Original Agreement") in connection with the
termination of Mobed's employment with the Company; and

WHEREAS, Mobed and the Company desire to amend paragraph 5 of the Original Agreement;

NOW, THEREFORE, Mobed and the Company agree as follows:





---



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Mobed and IHS Inc. have executed this amendment as of the day and year first above written.

/s/ Rohinton Mobed Rohinton MobedIHS Inc./s/ Stephen Green By: Stephen Green
Title: Senior Vice President


---



QuickLinks
#### BURTON v. COMMONWEALTH.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Nov. 6, 1953.

Milliken & Milliken, Bowling Green, for appellant.

J. D. Buckman, Jr., Atty. Gen., Wm. F. Simpson, Asst. Atty. Gen., William H. Natcher, Bowling Green, for appellee.

CAMMACK, Justice.

Elmo Smith Burton was convicted of voluntary manslaughter and sentenced to two years in prison. On this appeal he asks that the judgment be reversed because the court erred in failing to give an appropriate instruction on self-defense as the counterpart of the instruction on involuntary manslaughter. He relies upon the case of Sikes v. Commonwealth, 304 Ky. 429, 200 S.W.2d 956. That case is controlling here, for the reasons hereinafter discussed.

Burton and his wife went to the Beech Bend Park to dance. During the course of the evening they left the dance floor and started in the direction of their car. When they had gone some 50 feet, they stopped, and, according to Burton’s testimony, he had his arms around his wife’s shoulders when the deceased, Earl Houchens, made an offensive remark to him. According to the Commonwealth’s testimony, Burton and his wife were arguing as Houchens and two companions were passing them in back of Burton. That Houchens made some remark to Burton is not in question. After Burton said something to Houchens, the latter walked up behind Burton and placed his hand on his shoulder. According to Burton’s testimony, he turned around and pushed Houchens’ hand away with his left arm and slapped at him with his right hand. Houchens fell backwards, striking his head on the ground. He never regained consciousness and the coroner testified that he died from a fracture at the base 'of his skull. A part of the evidence for the Commonwealth substantiated Burton’s version of the encounter. Some of the witnesses said, however, that, when Houchens placed his hand on Burton’s shoulder, the latter turned around and knocked Houchens down.

Clearly, this was a case for the application of the rule announced in the Sikes *191case. In this case, as in the Sikes case, the instruction given on self-defense as a counterpart of the instruction on involuntary manslaughter was predicated upon the idea that the accused could defend himself if he believed he was in danger of death or other great bodily harm. The type of self-defense instruction which should be given is discussed fully in the Sikes opinion. It would serve no useful purpose to discuss that question again in this opinion.

Judgment reversed, with directions to set it aside, and for proceedings consistent with this opinion.