alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### LLOYD v. STATE.

No. 23416.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 23, 1946.

Holt & Holt, of Carthage, for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

KRUEGER, Judge.

The offense is assault to murder with malice. The punishment assessed is confinement in the state penitentiary for a term of four years.

The record discloses that on the night of August 11, 1945, some negroes and some white men were engaged in a crap game. Some trouble arose over the game and bad language was used by appellant toward some of the white men which they resented. Appellant hurriedly left the'scene of the game with the remark that he would be back. He soon returned with a double-barreled shotgun and fired at E. W. Lampin who, when he saw appellant raise the gun to fire, fell to the ground, and the shot passed over him. At the time that appellant shot at Lampin, he was not over 15 or 20 feet from him.

Appellant did not testify or offer any affirmative defense. However, at the close of the evidence he moved for an instructed verdict of not guilty, which was denied.

It is our opinion that the evidence adduced by the State is sufficient to sustain the conviction.

Appellant brings forward three bills of exception. The first complains of the action of the trial court in overruling his oral motion for a continuance based on the absence of his wife, who was sick. The application is defective for the reason that it fails to state what fact or facts he expected to prove by the absent witness; that her testimony was material or that the motion was not made for delay as required by Art. 543, C.C.P. Therefore, no error was committed by the court in overruling the same.

Bill No. 2 complains of the action of the trial court in overruling his motion for an instruction to the jury to return a verdict of not guilty. This bill is without merit and is overruled.

Bill No. 3 complains of the court’s action in overruling his objections to Paragraphs 13 and 14 of the court’s main charge. We have examined said paragraphs of the charge in the light of appellant’s objections *930thereto, and reached the conclusion that there is no merit in his contention.

No error appearing from the record, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
!" "!" #$	

%%%%%%%%%%!&#&#%%%%%%%%%%



'()*+,*--


 	

./-/+0)+,

1223141563786795:3;

< $		=#>#&		>

?>?&##	>#$	@&	#$&A	>##&	&#$&#B>	&#$&		<



!#	< C,,DE+/FGHH*I+),JE/

'E*+,/0+)K/)+0L)E+JKL/E

C00E/HH

MNK)*()00E/HH

O/(/PQD+/+JKL/E

RCS+JKL/E

TUVWUXYZ[VWX[\W]^_U`aV

bcdefghijkligkjmnno

pqqrsinno

tuvwxyhxwwz{v

bcdefghijkligkjmnno|}~}qjnyigjgrg|ihisqligk

w}w{}vwvv j}qji~l

qji~lcvw{

vijiysh|mckivwmq{{

jkgm{{zw

qji~lqsqsyql

{{vxwvw

Case 6:20-cv-00572-ADA Document 94 Filed 03/07/22 Page 1 of 1
Schedule re Indemnification Agreements



 Exhibit 10.7 
 INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENTS 
 MariLyn R. Blair 
 Michael B. Bracy 
 Ted C. DeMerritt 
 Deloris R.
Duquette 
 C.R. Dwiggins, Jr. 
 Larry H. Eggleston 
 Jon E. Eliassen 
 Russell N. Fairbanks, Jr. 
 Thomas S. Foley 
 Thomas S. Glanville 
 Steven M. Helmbrecht 
 Chuck McAtee 
 Philip C. Mezey 
 Randi L. Neilson 
 Robert D. Neilson 
 Sharon L. Nelson 
 LeRoy D. Nosbaum 
 Mary Ann Peters 
 Jemima G. Scarpelli f/k/a Brennan 
 Douglas L. Staker 
 Russell E. Vanos 
 Stuart Edward White 
 Robert W. Whitney 
 Graham M. Wilson
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5679 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on mixtures of 5-methyl-5- 

(4-phenoxyphenyl)–3- (phenyl-amino)–2,4-oxazolidinedione](famoxadone), 

2-cyano-N-[(ethylamino)- carbonyl]-2-(methoxyimino)acetamide 

(Cymoxanil) and application adjuvants. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 9, 2012 

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

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on mixtures 

of 5-methyl-5-(4-phenoxyphenyl)–3- (phenyl-amino)–2,4- 

oxazolidinedione](famoxadone), 2-cyano-N-[(ethylamino)- 

carbonyl]-2-(methoxyimino)acetamide (Cymoxanil) and 

application adjuvants. 

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


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5679 IH

1 SECTION 1. MIXTURES OF 5-METHYL-5-(4- 

2 PHENOXYPHENYL)–3- (PHENYL-AMINO)–2,4- 

3 OXAZOLIDINEDIONE](FAMOXADONE), 2- 

4 CYANO-N-[(ETHYLAMINO)- CARBONYL]-2- 

5 (METHOXYIMINO)ACETAMIDE (CYMOXANIL) 

6 AND APPLICATION ADJUVANTS. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.12.45 of the Har8 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

9 mixtures of 5-methyl-5-(4-phenoxyphenyl)–3- (phenyl10 amino)–2,4-oxazolidinedione](famoxadone), 2-cyano-N11 [(ethylamino)- carbonyl]-2-(methoxyimino)acetamide 

12 (Cymoxanil) and application adjuvants) is amended by 

13 striking the date in the effective period column and insert14 ing ‘‘12/31/2015’’. 

15 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

16 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

17 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

18 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
**Exhibit
      99.6**




**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 Annual Report of YM BioSciences Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
        40-F for the year ended June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
        Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, David G.P. Allan, Chief
        Executive 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
        to
        the best of my knowledge:
  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.
  
 By: /s/
        David G.P. Allan
 
 David
        G.P. Allan
 Chief
        Executive Officer
  September
        21, 2006
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

Exhibit 10.8  


 
  Long-Term Executive Incentive Plan—Performance Goals and Target Awards
  for the 2006-2008 Cycle    
    


        The registrant maintains a shareholder-approved Long-Term Executive Incentive Compensation Plan to provide certain executives, including the executive
officers, the opportunity to receive a cash award based on the achievement of performance objectives over a three-year cycle. The Compensation and Succession Committee of the Board of
Directors establishes performance goals for each cycle and sets threshold, target and maximum levels of performance. Awards are calculated on an executive's annual salary as of the beginning of the
cycle. The amount of each executive's payout is dependent on the achievement of the performance goals. The Committee has the authority to adjust the amount of awards payable under the Plan, but has no
authority to increase the amount of an award otherwise payable to a "covered employee" as defined in Section 162(m)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Payments are made in March of the year
following the end of the respective cycle, after the Committee has certified in writing the degree of attainment of the cycle's performance goals. 


        On
February 21, 2006 the Committee approved performance goals and target awards for the 2006-2008 three-year performance cycle. Fifty percent of the
performance measure for the 2006-2008 cycle is based on the three-year average net income return on equity, with equity adjusted to exclude unrealized net capital gains and
losses, as compared to a peer group of companies representing both the property/casualty and financial services industries over the same three-year period. No payment based on this return
on equity measure is made unless that return exceeds the average rate on three-year Treasury Notes over the three-year cycle, plus 200 basis points. Twenty-five
percent of the performance measure for the cycle is based on Allstate Protection's cumulative three-year policies in force ("PIF") growth, which is the sum of the annual PIF growth for
each of the three years, excluding property insurance. Growth in property insurance is excluded from this measure as management is evaluating the implications of reducing the Registrant's exposure to
catastrophe losses. The remaining twenty-five percent is based on the three year-average Allstate Financial operating income return on equity, with equity adjusted to exclude
unrealized net capital gains and losses. Award opportunities range from 0% to 300% of an executive officer's target award, depending on the level of performance achieved for the cycle. An executive
officer's target award generally ranges from 55% to 155% of salary. 











QuickLinks


Long-Term Executive Incentive Plan—Performance Goals and Target Awards for the 2006-2008 Cycle
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                      48,021,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               54,898,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,736,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           148,773,000
<PP&E>                                     309,614,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              16,988,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           1,383,452,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      163,414,000
<BONDS>                                    768,195,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           303
<OTHER-SE>                                     378,233
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             1,383,452,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           884,286,000
<CGS>                                      678,756,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              903,546,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          50,759,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (62,934,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 3,000,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (65,934,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (65,934,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (2.75)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.75)
        


</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1








                                                                      EXHIBIT 15




April 23, 2001




Board of Directors
Superior Uniform Group, Inc.
Seminole, Florida

We have made a review, in accordance with standards established by the American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants, of the unaudited interim financial
information of Superior Uniform Group, Inc. for the periods ended March 31, 2001
and 2000, as indicated in our report dated April 23, 2001; because we did not
perform an audit, we expressed no opinion on that information.

We are aware that our report referred to above, which is included in your
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2001, is
incorporated by reference in Registration Statement No. 2-85796 on Form S-8.

We also are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) under
the Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of the Registration
Statement prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared or
certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.


/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

Certified Public Accountants
Tampa, Florida
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 280 

To amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to require States to provide 

for same day registration. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 15, 2013 

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

Committee on House Administration 

A BILL 

To amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to require 

States to provide for same day registration. 

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 ‘‘Same Day Registration 

5 Act of 2013’’. 

6 SEC. 2. SAME DAY REGISTRATION. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Title III of the Help America 

8 Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15481 et seq.) is amended— 

9 (1) by redesignating sections 304 and 305 as 

10 sections 305 and 306, respectively; and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with 

2 

•HR 280 IH

1 (2) by inserting after section 303 the following 

2 new section: 

3 ‘‘SEC. 304. SAME DAY REGISTRATION. 

4 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.— 

5 ‘‘(1) REGISTRATION.—Notwithstanding section 

6 8(a)(1)(D) of the National Voter Registration Act of 

7 1993 (42 U.S.C. 1973gg–6), each State shall permit 

8 any eligible individual on the day of a Federal elec9 tion and on any day when voting, including early 

10 voting, is permitted for a Federal election— 

11 ‘‘(A) to register to vote in such election at 

12 the polling place using a form that meets the 

13 requirements under section 9(b) of the National 

14 Voter Registration Act of 1993 (or, if the indi15 vidual is already registered to vote, to revise 

16 any of the individual’s voter registration infor17 mation); and 

18 ‘‘(B) to cast a vote in such election. 

19 ‘‘(2) EXCEPTION.—The requirements under 

20 paragraph (1) shall not apply to a State in which, 

21 under a State law in effect continuously on and after 

22 the date of the enactment of this section, there is no 

23 voter registration requirement for individuals in the 

24 State with respect to elections for Federal office. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with 

3 

•HR 280 IH

1 ‘‘(b) ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUAL.—For purposes of this 

2 section, the term ‘eligible individual’ means, with respect 

3 to any election for Federal office, an individual who is oth4 erwise qualified to vote in that election. 

5 ‘‘(c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—Each State shall be re6 quired to comply with the requirements of subsection (a) 

7 for the regularly scheduled general election for Federal of8 fice occurring in November 2014 and for any subsequent 

9 election for Federal office.’’. 

10 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.— 

11 (1) Section 401 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 15511) 

12 is amended by striking ‘‘and 303’’ and inserting 

13 ‘‘303, and 304’’. 

14 (2) The table of contents of such Act is amend15 ed— 

16 (A) by redesignating the items relating to 

17 sections 304 and 305 as relating to sections 

18 305 and 306, respectively; and 

19 (B) by inserting after the item relating to 

20 section 303 the following new item: 

‘‘Sec. 304. Same day registration.’’. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM TECH-SYM'S 1ST QUARTER 1997 FORM 10-Q 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-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          18,996
<SECURITIES>                                     4,025
<RECEIVABLES>                                   63,166
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     86,609
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               233,853
<PP&E>                                          49,041
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 319,346
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           91,472
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           795
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   319,346
<SALES>                                         79,521
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                           52,665
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   75,221
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 762
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,581
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,097
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,441
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,441
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.40
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

____________

No. 22-30698

Summary Calendar

____________

Willie E. Berry, Jr., 

Plaintiff—Appellant,

versus

Nicholas J. Sanders, Major, 

Defendant—Appellee.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Middle District of Louisiana

USDC No. 3:17-CV-318

______________________________

Before Wiener, Elrod, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:

*

William E. Berry, Jr., Louisiana prisoner # 354431, sued Nicholas J. 

Sanders, an employee of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and 

Corrections (DPSC), under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Sanders had used 

excessive force. A jury rendered a verdict in Sanders’s favor. Berry moved 

for a new trial, alleging that during discovery, DPSC had produced two 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 11, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 22-30698 Document: 00516854935 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/11/2023
No. 22-30698

2

versions of the same logbook that differed in material ways, including as to 

the identities of officers assigned to his unit on the day of the incident. See 

generally Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(a). The district court denied relief, concluding 

that Berry had not shown that the jury’s verdict was against the clear weight 

of the evidence, because he brought the discrepancies to the jury’s attention 

at trial and its verdict was based on a credibility determination. Berry appeals 

the denial of postjudgment relief. He does not challenge the jury’s verdict.

Berry fails to show that the district court abused its discretion. See 

Seibert v. Jackson Cnty., Mississippi, 851 F.3d 430, 438 (5th Cir. 2017). 

Critically, Berry does not identify any error in the district court’s dispositive 

finding that he could not show prejudice because the jury was aware of the 

discrepant records when it rendered its verdict or otherwise explain how he 

was prejudiced. 

The judgment is accordingly AFFIRMED.

Case: 22-30698 Document: 00516854935 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/11/2023
#### DARDEN v. STATE.

No. 25674.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 30, 1952.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

*492GRAVES, Presiding Judge.

The conviction is for burglary. The punishment assessed is confinement in the state penitentiary for a term of five years.

The record is before us without a statement of facts and bills of exception.

We notice that the trial court failed to make application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, Vernon’s Ann. C.C.P. art. 775, in the sentence herein. The same is hereby amended so that it shall hereafter read that appellant is sentenced to serve not less than two nor more than five years’ confinement in the state penitentiary.

Therefore, the sentence is reformed, and as so reformed, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2752 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2752

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude seasonal workers 
   from the applicable large employer determination for purposes of 
       employer shared responsibility regarding health coverage.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 19, 2013

Mr. Alexander introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude seasonal workers 
   from the applicable large employer determination for purposes of 
       employer shared responsibility regarding health coverage.

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

SECTION 1. SEASONAL WORKERS DISREGARDED IN DETERMINING EMPLOYER SIZE 
              FOR PURPOSES OF EMPLOYER SHARED RESPONSIBILITY.

    (a) In General.--Clause (i) of section 4980H(c)(2)(B) of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read as follows:
                            ``(i) In general.--Seasonal workers shall 
                        not be taken into account for purposes of 
                        determining whether an employer is an 
                        applicable large employer under this 
                        paragraph.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to months beginning after December 31, 2013.
                                 <all>
```