alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Carmine Tempesta, Appellant, v Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York et al., Respondents.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondents, dated May 18, 1988, which terminated his employment as a teacher, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bernstein, J.), entered June 21,1989, which dismissed the petition.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs, for reasons stated by Justice Bernstein in the Supreme Court. Thompson, J. P., Lawrence, Eiber and Ritter, JJ., concur.
113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 273 

AN ACT 

To eliminate the 2013 statutory pay adjustment for Federal 

employees. 

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

•HR 273 EH

1 SECTION 1. ELIMINATION OF 2013 PAY ADJUSTMENT. 

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 147 of the Continuing 

3 Appropriations Act, 2011 (Public Law 111–242; 5 U.S.C. 

4 5303 note), as amended by section 114(a) of the Con5 tinuing Appropriations Resolution, 2013 (Public Law 

6 112–175; 126 Stat. 1316), is amended— 

7 (1) in subsection (b)(1), by striking the matter 

8 after ‘‘ending on’’ and before ‘‘shall be made’’ and 

9 inserting ‘‘December 31, 2013,’’; and 

10 (2) in subsection (c), by striking the matter 

11 after ‘‘ending on’’ and before ‘‘no senior executive’’ 

12 and inserting ‘‘December 31, 2013,’’. 

13 (b) ELIMINATION OF DELAYED ADJUSTMENT.—Sec14 tion 114(b) of the Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 

15 2013 is repealed. 

Passed the House of Representatives February 15, 

2013. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 273 

AN ACT 

To eliminate the 2013 statutory pay adjustment for 

Federal employees.
Exhibit 23.2

                                           Consent of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements
of  DA  Consulting  Group,  Inc., on Form S-8 (File No. 333-71987) of our report
dated  March 19, 2001 on our audit of the consolidated statements of operations,
shareholders equity and cash flows of DA Consulting Group, Inc. and subsidiaries
for  the  year  ended  December 31, 2000 which report is included in this Annual
Report  on  Form  10-K.



PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Houston, Texas
March 31, 2003


                                  Page 56 of 59
<PAGE>
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 282 

To rescind certain Federal funds identified by States as unwanted and use 

the funds to reduce the Federal debt. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 15, 2013 

Mr. FLEISCHMANN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Appropriations 

A BILL 

To rescind certain Federal funds identified by States as 

unwanted and use the funds to reduce the Federal debt. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Returned Exclusively 

5 For Unpaid National Debt Act’’ or the ‘‘REFUND Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. USE OF UNWANTED FEDERAL FUNDS TO REDUCE 

7 FEDERAL DEBT. 

8 (a) RESCISSION OF UNWANTED FEDERAL FUNDS.— 

9 There is rescinded, from any Federal funds required to 

10 be allocated by formula among all States that agree to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with 

2 

•HR 282 IH

1 use such funds for a specified purpose, an amount equal 

2 to the amount of such funds that would have otherwise 

3 been allocated to a State that identifies such funds under 

4 subsection (b) as unwanted. 

5 (b) IDENTIFICATION OF FUNDS.—Subsection (a) 

6 shall only apply if, not later than the last date on which 

7 an application or State plan must be submitted in order 

8 for a State to be allocated, in an annual or biennial budget 

9 cycle, funds described in such subsection— 

10 (1) the State legislature with jurisdiction over 

11 such budget cycle adopts a concurrent resolution 

12 identifying the funds as unwanted; and 

13 (2) the State submits notice of the resolution 

14 described in paragraph (1) to the agency head re15 sponsible for allocation of the funds, in such form 

16 and manner and containing such information as the 

17 agency head determines appropriate to make the de18 termination in subsection (c). 

19 (c) DETERMINATION OF AMOUNT TO BE RE20 SCINDED.—An agency head that receives notice described 

21 in subsection (b)(2) shall determine and report to the Of22 fice of Management and Budget the amount to be re23 scinded under subsection (a). 

24 (d) USE FOR REDUCTION OF FEDERAL DEBT.— 

25 Amounts rescinded under subsection (a) shall be deposited 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with 

3 

•HR 282 IH

1 by the Secretary of the Treasury in the special fund ac2 count ‘‘Gifts to Reduce Debt Held by the Public, Bureau 

3 of the Public Debt, Treasury’’ and used to reduce the Fed4 eral debt as provided in section 3113(d) of title 31, United 

5 States Code. 

6 (e) ANNUAL REPORT.—The Secretary of the Treas7 ury shall submit to the Congress each year a report identi8 fying the amount deposited in the Treasury under sub9 section (d) with respect to each State in such year. 

10 (f) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

11 (1) The term ‘‘agency head’’ means the head of 

12 a department or agency of the Federal Government. 

13 (2) The term ‘‘State’’ means— 

14 (A) each of the several States; 

15 (B) the District of Columbia; or 

16 (C) any commonwealth, territory, or pos17 session of the United States. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACO DIVISION

WSOU INVESTMENTS, LLC d/b/a BRAZOS 

LICENSING AND DEVELOPMENT,

Plaintiff,

v.

DELL TECHNOLOGIES INC., DELL INC., 

AND EMC CORPORATION, 

Defendants.

Case No. 6:20-cv-00475-ADA

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

LETTER OF REQUEST FOR FOREIGN DISCOVERY
1

Defendants Dell Technologies Inc., Dell Inc., and EMC Corporation, (collectively 

“Defendants”) seek foreign discovery from third party witnesses residing in Finland. Defendants 

have attached an Appendix with a Letter of Request which includes Document Requests and

Deposition Topics. Defendants respectfully request that the Court execute the Letter of Request

attached as Appendix A. Defendants further request that, after the Court has signed the Letter of 

Request, the Clerk of this Court authenticate the Court’s signature under the seal of this Court, and 

return the original signed and sealed executed Letter, and two certified copies of the signed and 

sealed executed Letters, to Defendants’ counsel, Barry K. Shelton, for delivery to the proper 

authority.

Plaintiff, WSOU Investments, LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development, indicated 

that it reserves the right to serve its own foreign discovery in the future.

Dated: November 6, 2020 By: /s/ Barry K. Shelton

Barry K. Shelton

Texas State Bar No. 24055029

bshelton@sheltoncoburn.com

SHELTON COBURN LLP

311 RR 620, Ste. 205

Austin, TX 78734-4775 

Telephone: 512.263.2165

Facsimile: 512.263.2166 

Attorneys for Defendants
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that on November 6, 2020, all counsel of record who are deemed 

to have consented to electronic service are being served with a copy of this document through the 

Court’s CM/ECF system under Local Rule CV-5(b)(1). 

/s/ Barry K. Shelton

Barry K. Shelton
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

###### **Certification ofChief Financial Officer**

**Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act Of 2002**

**(18 U.S.C. § 1350)**

 

In connectionwith the quarterly report of Southwest Water Company (the “Company”) on Form10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2006 (the “Report”), I, Cheryl L. Clary,Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. §1350), that:

 

1)              to my knowledge, the Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

2)              the information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date: May 10, 2006 | /s/ CHERYL L. CLARY     |   |
|--------------------|-------------------------|--------|
|               | Cheryl L. Clary         |
|               | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 20 Filed 10/26/20 Page 1 of 1
#### HAGLER v. STATE.

No. 26686.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 16, 1953.

R. E. Murphey, Coleman, for appellant*

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

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is driving while intoxicated; the punishment, a fine of $150.

Highway Patrolman Palmer testified that on the night in question an automobile passed his patrol car weaving across the center stripe and onto the shoulder of the highway; that he and his fellow officer gave chase and finally overtook the same; that he asked the appellant to get out, and as he did so appellant staggered like he was drunk, smelled strongly of whiskey, talked like he was drunk, and in the opinion of the witness was drunk. Officer Palmer testified that he found a pint bottle of whiskey one-fourth full on the driver’s seat.

It was stipulated that Officer McCardell would testify substantially as had Officer Palmer.

The officers arrested appellant, took him to the county jail, and turned him over to the deputy sheriff.

Deputy Sheriff Jameson testified that he received appellant at the jail; that he appeared to be drunk, but that because of his life-long friendship with the appellant he took him home, and appellant agreed to come to the sheriff’s office in the morning and make bond.

Appellant, testifying in his own behalf, stated that he left Kilgore that morning, and because he was sick with the flu he purchased a pint of whiskey and drank some of it on the way, but that he was not drunk that night when he was arrested but was ill.

Mrs. Reeves, who was at appellant’s mother’s home when he arrived, testified that she was a practical nurse and had had experience with people who were intoxicated and that the appellant was ill but was not intoxicated.

*727Appellant’s mother testified that appellant was not intoxicated but that he seemed to be sick.

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

There are no bills of exception in the record.

Finding no reversible error, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
EX-4(U) AMEND #18 - EMPLOYEE SAVINGS PLAN



 






Exhibit 4(u)




AMENDMENT NO. 18

TO

THE LINCOLN ELECTRIC COMPANY

EMPLOYEE SAVINGS PLAN

(Effective November 1, 1994)




          The Lincoln Electric Company, an Ohio corporation, hereby adopts this Amendment No. 18 to The
Lincoln Electric Company Employee Savings Plan (Effective November 1, 1994) (the “Plan”), effective
as of January 31, 2005 unless otherwise provided herein.




I.




          Section 1.1(27) of the Plan is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:





     “(27) Enrollment Date: November 16, 1994, and (a) with respect to elections to
reduce Base Compensation, the first day of each January, April, July and October thereafter,
(b) with respect to elections to reduce Bonus Compensation payable in December of a calendar
year, the Wednesday immediately preceding each Thanksgiving Day after 1994, and (c) with
respect to any other Bonus Compensation payable at any other time during a calendar year,
the date designated by the Administrative Committee, provided that such date is no later
than the day before the date that such Bonus Compensation is determined.”



II.




          Section 2.2(1)(c) of the Plan is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:





“(c) his authorization to his Employer to withhold from his Base Compensation for each pay
period and/or from his Bonus Compensation, commencing on or after such effective date, any
designated Before-Tax Contributions and to pay the same to the Trust, and”



III.




          The last sentence of Section 3.3 of the Plan is hereby amended in its entirety to read as
follows:





“For each payment of Bonus Compensation, a Member shall make an election with respect to the
percentage, or amount, if any, of each such payment to be made as Before-Tax Contributions
effective as of the applicable Enrollment Date, upon such prior written notice filed with
the Administrative Committee, and on such form as the Committee may require.”



 









 





IV.




          Effective as of March 28, 2005, Section 6.3(4) of the Plan is hereby amended by deleting
“$5,000” where it appears therein and substituting therefor “$1,000”.





EXECUTED at Cleveland, Ohio this 31st day of January, 2005.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	THE LINCOLN ELECTRIC COMPANY

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ G. A. Farrell
 	 
	 	 	      Title: 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 



 2
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. John E. Schurman, Relator, against Harry T. Ashworth, as Warden of the Penitentiary of the City of New York, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Bronx County,

December 31, 1945.

*John E. Schurman,*relator in person.

*Frank S. Hogan, District Attorney, New York County,*and *Samuel J. Foley, District Attorney, Bronx County,*for respondent.

Benjamin F. Schreiber, J.

On January 19, 1944, upon his plea of guilty to the crime of petit larceny, the relator’s sentence was suspended and he was placed on probation.

On March 7, 1945 the relator was sentenced to the Penitentiary of the City of New York for violation of probation.

The relator contends that, since, when sentenced to the penitentiary, the court referred to him as *“*hopeless ”, he was improperly sentenced for an indeterminate term in the penitentiary and should have been sentenced to a fixed term of one year or fined or both. (Penal Law, § 1937.)

Under section 203 of the Correction Law an offender may not be sentenced who is ‘ ‘ mentally or physically incapable of being substantially benefited by being committed to a correctional or reformatory institution ”.

Under the authorities, the possibility of benefit by such sentence is to be conclusively presumed from the very sentence, however incongruous. *(People*v. *Thompson,*251 N. Y. 428; *People ex rel. Standik*v. *Ashworth,*9 Misc 2d 444, affd. 266 App. Div. 775; *People ex rel. Pastore*v. *Ashworth,*9 Misc 2d 445; *People ex rel. Halle*v. *Ashworth,*9 Misc 2d 451.)

The court cannot agree with the relator’s contention that the term of his probation was tantamount to a parole and that *449the indeterminate sentence of three years inflicted a total punishment of four years and was therefore illegal. Probation is not a sentence, but is a relief from the operation of a sentence (Code Crim. Pro., § 470-a; *People ex rel. Lehman*v. Hunt, 255 App. Div. 931). The sentence is not affected by the probationary period.

Writ dismissed.
#### WARTENBACH v. STATE.

No. 22015.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 18, 1942.

Erwin K. Stork, of Austin, for appellant.

Spurgeon E. Bell, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Conviction is for bigamy, punishment assessed being confinement in the penitentiary for a term of two years.

The indictment appears to sufficiently charge the offense. The record contains neither statement of facts nor bills of exception. In such, condition nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.
Exhibit 32.2



BOSTON LIFE SCIENCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES



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 Boston Life Sciences, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Joseph P. Hernon, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial 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/ JOSEPH P. HERNONJoseph P. HernonExecutive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary




Date: August 13, 2004
<PAGE>
 
                           DA CONSULTING GROUP, INC.
                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
 
  We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements
of DA Consulting Group, Inc. on Form S-1 (File No. 333-43989) and on Form S-8
(File No. 333-71987), of our report dated February 19, 1999, on our audits of
the consolidated financial statements of DA Consulting Group, Inc. as of
December 31, 1998 and 1997, and for the years ended December 31, 1998, 1997 and
1996, which report is included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.
 
/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
 
Houston, Texas
March 25, 1999
Order entered February 16, 2023

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-22-00520-CR

JOSEPH MICHAEL MARRA, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 416th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 416-84582-2018

ORDER

Appellant’s brief is overdue. Appellant’s brief was originally due November 

6, 2022. On November 7, 2022, appellant moved for an extension of time to file 

the brief; the Court granted the motion on November 8, 2022 and ordered 

appellant’s brief filed by December 6, 2022. Appellant filed a second motion for 

extension of time to file the brief on December 6, 2022; on December 8, 2022, the 

Court granted the motion and ordered appellant’s brief filed by January 5, 2023. 

On January 5, 2023, appellant filed a third motion for extension of time to file the 
brief; on January 9, 2023, the Court granted the motion and ordered appellant’s 

brief filed by February 6, 2023. In the January 5, 2023 order, the Court cautioned 

appellant that if the brief was not filed by February 6, 2023, the Court may abate 

the case for a hearing in the trial court to determine why the brief has not been 

filed. As of the date of this order, the brief is more than ten days overdue, and 

appellant’s counsel has not filed either the brief, a further motion for extension, or 

otherwise communicated with the Court concerning the brief.

The Court ORDERS the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine why 

appellant’s brief has not been filed. In this regard, the trial court shall make 

appropriate findings and recommendations and determine whether appellant 

desires to prosecute the appeal, whether appellant has abandoned the appeal, or 

whether appellant’s counsel has abandoned the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 

38.8(b). If the trial court cannot obtain appellant’s presence at the hearing, the trial 

court shall conduct the hearing in appellant’s absence. See Meza v. State, 742 

S.W.2d 708 (Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 1987, no pet.) (per curiam). If counsel has 

abandoned the appeal, the trial court is ORDERED to take such measures as may 

be necessary to assure effective representation, including appointment of new 

counsel.
We ORDER the trial court to transmit a record of the proceedings, which 

shall include written findings and recommendations, to this Court within THIRTY 

DAYS of the date of this order.

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order to the Honorable Andrea 

Thompson, Presiding Judge, 416th Judicial District Court; and to counsel for all 

parties.

This appeal is ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with the above 

order. This appeal shall be reinstated when the record transmitted by the trial court 

is received or at such other time as the Court deems proper.

/s/ ERIN A. NOWELL

JUSTICE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM TECH-SYM CORPORATION FORM 10-Q 1ST QUARTER 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          18,914
<SECURITIES>                                     4,458
<RECEIVABLES>                                   69,162
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     96,377
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               243,558
<PP&E>                                          49,456
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 339,195
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          112,686
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              801
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   339,195
<SALES>                                         77,724
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                           51,313
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                19,800
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,036
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,575
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,840
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,252
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .54
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .53
        


</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.18
 PERFORMANCE UNIT AWARD AGREEMENT
UNDER
SAIA, INC.S
AMENDED AND RESTATED 2003 OMNIBUS INCENTIVE PLAN
 THIS AWARD AGREEMENT Date of
Grant Company  Employee
 WITNESSETH:
 WHEREAS, Board of Directors Plan
 WHEREAS,
 NOW, THEREFORE,
 1. Grant of Award . Award Performance Unit Award
 2. Award Subject to Plan . Committee
 3. Performance Period . Performance
Period
 4. Performance Unit Award .
 General . Target Incentive
 Amount of Target Incentive Payable to Employee for the Performance Period . Total Stockholder Return Peer Companies




---



##### 



If the Companys Total Stockholder Return
    
    Then the Percentage of TargetOver The Performance Period As Compared
    
    Incentiveto Peer Companies
    
    Payable to Employee isIs at the 75th percentile or higher
    
    200%Is at the 50th percentile
    
    100%Is at the 25th percentile
    
    25%Is below the 25th percentile
    
    0%
  Payment of Performance Unit Award for the Performance Period 1 2
 5. Total Stockholder Return.
 6. Peer Companies .
 2




---



##### 



7. Termination of Employment .
   8. Change of Control .
 9. Forfeiture .
 10. Tax Withholding .
 3




---



##### 



11. Non-Transferability .
 12. Definitions; Copy of Plan .
 13. Committee Administration .
 14. Acknowledgement .
 15. Choice of Law .
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
 SAIA, INC.By:Its:
    
    [][]
 4