alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### BRASLAU et al. v. MOON.

No. 11594.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

Feb. 20, 1946.

*781James L. Lattimore and Kemp, Lew-right, Dyer, Wilson & Sorrell, all of Corpus Christi, for 'appellants.

Carter & Stiernberg and J. F. Whitelaw, all of Harlingen, for appellee.

NORVELL, Justice.

This is an appeal from an order overruling a plea of privilege. The action grew out of a three-way automobile collision which occurred in Jim Wells County, Texas. On the evening of April 11, 1945, H. J. Moon, his wife and two children were traveling in a westerly direction from Alice toward San Diego. Ahead of Moon on the road, Jim H. Walker, Jr., was also traveling in a westerly direction. A Chevrolet truck owned by Frank and Morris Braslau and being driven by one of their employees was traveling in an easterly direction toward Alice when it collided with the Walker car and then with the Moon car.

Moon, individually and as next friend of his minor children, brought this action in Jim Wells County against Frank Braslau, Morris Braslau and Jim H. Walker, Jr. The Braslaus filed a plea of privilege to be sued in Nueces County. Moon filed a controverting affidavit, based upon exceptions 4, 9 and 29a of Article 1995, Vernon’s Ann. Civ. Stats.

Appellee concedes that the order appealed from must be reversed. It was not proven that Jim H. Walker, Jr., was a resident.of Jim Wells County, consequently exception 4 is not applicable. Exception 29a is only operative in connection with some other exception set forth in Article 1995. Boyd v. San Antonio National Bank, Tex.Civ.App., 171 S.W.2d 375. The jury found that the driver of the truck was guilty of a number of acts of affirmative negligence, but, although the defect was called to the court’s attention, no issue was submitted as to whether or not these acts of negligence were proximate causes of Moon’s injuries or damages. Venue in Jim Wells County under exception 9 therefore cannot be sustained. Heard & Heard v. Kuhnert, Tex.Civ.App., 155 S.W.2d 817.

All that remains in the case is to determine whether the cause should be remanded to the Jim Wells County District Court for new trial upon the plea, or the venue changed by this Court to one of the District Courts of Nueces County.

If only exceptions 4 and 29a were involved, the proper order upon this record would be one transferring the case to ■Nueces County for trial upon the merits. However, insofar as exception 9 is concerned, the error consists of the failure to submit one element of a venue fact under record circumstances which would preclude an implied finding against appellants upon such issue. The proper order, therefore, is the same as that which would be entered because of a like error committed upon a trial of the merits.

The order appealed from is reversed and the cause remanded to the District Court of Jim Wells County for new trial upon appellants’ plea of privilege.

Reversed and remanded.
p.1 

OAR Box 1875 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

38) ll-E-56 

Docket Number: 

A-90-19 

Printed 12/1/200811:12:46 AM Sheet 38 of 86 
P.2 

A-90-19 

ll-E-56 

DATE: September 16, 1992 

SUBJECT: Hazardous Organic NESHAP (HON) Meeting with State 

Representatives 

Attached is an agenda for a teleconference in which Jeff Clark, 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, updated members of 

the National Governors Association's Air Implementation Task 

Force about the HON. 

Attachment: 1 

.ii ___-_—......... 

DEC I 81992 

i p 'A i ,x •'-• • ,-•• .'2 • 

mgmll.memos.dct 
P.3 

\ NATIONAL' 

CJOVERNOBS 

ASSGOATION 

Roy Romer 

Governor of Colorado 

Chairman 

Carroll A. Campbell Jr. 

Governor of South Carolina 

Vice Chairman 

Raymond C Scheppach 

Executive Director 

Hall of the States 

444 North Capitol Street 

Washington. D.C. .10001.15 

Telephone (202)6>4.5)0O 

**** * 

AGENDA 

The State Environmental Commissioners' 

Air Implementation Task Force 

Conference Call with EPA -- Wednesday. September 16. 2:00 p.m. Eastern Time 

Conference Line: 202-260-0254 

HON Rule 

• Status of EPA Discussions with OMB 

• Interpollutant Averaging: Strategy for Promulgation of the Rule 

Economic Incentives Rule 

Briefing by EPA and Input from States (refer to EPA briefing materials attached) 

New Source Review Rules and VOC Banking and Trading 

Briefing by EPA and Input from States 

Title IV NOx Rule 

Update on Rule from EPA
##### 



Exhibit 12
 ADVANTA CORP. AND SUBSIDIARIES
COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
 Three Months Ended
    
    Nine Months Ended($ in thousands)
    
    September 30,
    
    September 30,2007
    
    2006
    
    2007
    
    2006Income from continuing operations
    
    $
    22,051
    
    
    $
    21,120
    
    
    $
    66,211
    
    
    $
    66,070Income tax expense
    
    
    13,863
    
    
    
    13,222
    
    
    
    41,624
    
    
    
    41,361Earnings before income taxes
    
    
    35,914
    
    
    
    34,342
    
    
    
    107,835
    
    
    
    107,431Fixed charges:Interest on debt, deposits and other
borrowings
    
    
    23,289
    
    
    
    17,360
    
    
    
    64,850
    
    
    
    46,215Interest on subordinated debt payable
to preferred securities trust
    
    
    2,317
    
    
    
    2,289
    
    
    
    6,951
    
    
    
    6,868One-third of all rentals
    
    
    477
    
    
    
    463
    
    
    
    1,408
    
    
    
    1,367Total fixed charges
    
    
    26,083
    
    
    
    20,112
    
    
    
    73,209
    
    
    
    54,450Earnings before income taxes and fixed charges
    
    $
    61,997
    
    
    $
    54,454
    
    
    $
    181,044
    
    
    $
    161,881Ratio of earnings to fixed charges(1)
    
    
    2.38
    x
    
    
    2.71
    x
    
    
    2.47
    x
    
    
    2.97
    x
 
 (1)
    
    For purposes of computing these ratios, earnings represent income before income
taxes plus fixed charges. Fixed charges consist of interest expense and one-third
(the portion deemed representative of the interest factor) of rental expense on
operating leases. Fixed charges do not include interest expense related to
unrecognized tax benefits, which we classify as income tax expense.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-7016
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ERIC LEWIS BRANDON, a/k/a Eric Lewis, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CR-90-173-G, CA-96-822) Submitted: January 22, 1998 Decided: February 4, 1998 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eric Lewis Brandon, Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin H. White, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find noreversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Brandon , Nos. CR-90-173-G; CA-96-822 (M.D.N.C. June 3, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 32.2



STATEMENT FURNISHED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, 18

U.S.C. SECTION 1350



The undersigned, Terry Prichard, is the Chief Financial Officer of Pocahontas Bancorp, Inc. (the Company).



This statement is being furnished in connection with the filing by the
Company of the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2003 (the Report).



By execution of this statement, I certify that:



| | C) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)) and
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | D) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of the dates and for the
periods covered by the Report.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



This statement is
authorized to be attached as an exhibit to the Report so that this statement will accompany the Report at such time as the Report is filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18
U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not intended that this statement be deemed to be filed for purposes of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.



|December 22, 2003 |  | /s/ Terry Prichard
|----------------- |  | ------------------
|Dated             |  | Terry Prichard    



79
Exhibit 10.14


 


Amendment to the Long-term Incentive Plan


 


COMFORT SYSTEMS USA, INC.


1997 LONG-TERM INCENTIVE PLAN


 


Amendment


 


Pursuant
to Section 8(e) of the Comfort Systems USA, Inc. 1997 Long-Term Incentive Plan
(the “Plan”) and pursuant to a vote of the Board of Directors of Comfort
Systems USA, Inc., the Plan has been amended as follows, effective as of March
31, 2004:


 


1.   Section 8(l) of the Plan is amended in its
entirety to read as follows:


 


“(l)          EFFECTIVE DATE; PLAN TERMINATION.  The
Plan shall become effective as of the date of its adoption by the Board (the “Adoption
Date”), subject to stockholder approval prior to the commencement of the
Initial Public Offering, and shall continue in effect until the date ten years
from the Adoption Date (the “Termination Date”).  No Award may be granted under the Plan after
the Termination Date, but Awards previously granted may extend beyond the
Termination Date.”


 


 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, Comfort Systems USA, Inc. has caused this instrument to be
executed by its duly authorized officer this 31st day of March, 2004.


 


 


	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  COMFORT
  SYSTEMS USA, INC.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  By:

  	
   

  	
  /s/ William George

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  William George

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  Senior
  Vice President and Secretary
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          82,079
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          45,459
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                               131,623
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    932,569
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                      1,726,216
<ALLOWANCE>                                     63,592
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,002,482
<DEPOSITS>                                   2,312,691
<SHORT-TERM>                                   535,748
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            294,104
<LONG-TERM>                                    348,167
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      1,010
<COMMON>                                           278
<OTHER-SE>                                     410,484
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               4,002,482
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 96,353
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               55,839
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                16,486
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               168,678
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              62,333
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              99,485
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           69,193
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   38,859
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                               9,866
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                192,918
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (175,626)
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   (175,626)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (175,626)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (7.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (7.03)
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.70
<LOANS-NON>                                     51,465
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                41,847
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   21,315
<RECOVERIES>                                     4,201
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               63,592
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            63,592
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
Exhbit 10.51
                                                                    ------------




                                              February 27, 2006


Marijn E. Dekkers
President and CEO
Thermo Electron Corporation
81 Wyman Street
Waltham, MA 02454

Dear Marijn:

     This letter confirms our agreement as to the following:

     1. That all references in your Amended & Restated  Employment  Agreement to
the "Reference Bonus Amount" shall mean 100% of your then current salary.

     2. That the stock option to purchase 450,000 shares of the Company's common
stock, exercisable for a period of 7 years from the date of grant, being granted
to you on February  27,  2006,  shall be in lieu of the stock option to purchase
260,000  shares of the Company's  common stock,  exercisable  for a period of 10
years from the date of grant, to which you are entitled pursuant to Section 6(c)
of your Amended & Restated Employment Agreement.


                                              Very truly yours,



                                              /s/ Elaine S. Ullian
                                              ----------------------------
                                              Elaine S. Ullian
                                              Chair
                                              Thermo Electron Corporation
                                              Compensation Committee


ACCEPTED AND AGREED:


By:   /s/ Marijn E. Dekkers
      ----------------------------
      Marijn E. Dekkers
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7383

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ZAVIEN LENOY CANADA,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior 

District Judge. (6:09-cr-00415-GRA-1)

Submitted: December 20, 2012 Decided: December 27, 2012

Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Zavien Lenoy Canada, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Jean Howard, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Zavien Lenoy Canada appeals the district court’s order 

denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for sentence 

reduction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible 

error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the 

district court. United States v. Canada, No. 6:09-cr-00415-GRA1 (D.S.C. July 24, 2012). We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 

in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 10.28



 Exhibit 10.28 
 Current Executive Officer Salary and Bonus Arrangements 
 Base Salaries 
 The current base salaries for the executive officers of The Rowe Companies (the “Company”) are as follows: 
  

					
	 Name and Title
	  	Base Salary	 
	 Gerald M. Birnbach
	  	$	939,924.00	(1)
	 Chairman of the Board and President
	  			
		
	 Barry A. Birnbach
	  	$	260,000.00	 
	 Vice President - Corporate
	  			
	 Development
	  			
		
	 Timothy J. Fortune
	  	$	212,500.00	 
	 Senior Vice President - Operations -
	  			
	 Rowe Furniture Corporation
	  			
		
	 Garry W. Angle
	  	$	160,000.00	(2)
	 Vice President-Treasurer
	  			



	(1)	Pursuant to his employment agreement, Mr. Gerald Birnbach’s base salary is subject to adjustment annually based on increases in the Consumer Price Index pursuant to a
formula set forth in the agreement. 


	(2)	Mr. Angle became an executive officer upon his promotion to Vice President-Treasurer effective January 6, 2006. 

 Description of Bonus Arrangements 
 Under the terms of his employment agreement, Mr. Gerald Birnbach may receive cash bonuses for unusual efforts to be awarded in the sole discretion of the Company’s Board of Directors. The other executive officers may be awarded
cash bonuses based on individual and corporate performance in the sole discretion of the Compensation Committee of the Company’s Board of Directors. 
 The arrangements described above are in addition to the various other compensatory plans, contracts and arrangements in which the executive officers participate and which were previously filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.
S u mma r y o f P hon e Con v e r s ati on s w i th t h e S o u t h C o a s t A i r Q u a lit y M a n a g em e n t D i s t r i ct

P r e p a r e d b y N ic o le L a w

M a r c h 23, 201 1

P hon e c on v e r s a t i on b e t w e e n N ic o le L a w ( E PA ) a nd E u g e n e T e s z le r ( S C AQMD ) on M a r c h 22, 20 1 1.

T h i s c on v e r s a t i on w a s f

or N ic o l e t o g et m or e i n f

or mati on r e g a rd i n g f

la r e m i n i mi z at i on p l a n s ( F M P s )

und e r Ru l e 4311 at S C AQMD

. N ic o le r e qu e s te d c o p ie s o f v a r i ou s f acilit y F M Ps a nd t h e d i s t r i c t

s tate d t h a t no t e v e r y f

acili t y w a s r e qu i r e d t o s u b mit th em

. N i c o l e t h e n a s k e d i f e v e r y f acil i t y

s ub mit t e d r e por t s un d e r R u le 

### 1118 (c)( 2 ) ( B ) a nd ( c )( 2 )( C ) . T h e d i s t r i c ts t a t e d t h a t fac iliti e s on l y

sub mitt e d F M P s w h e n t h e SO

x 

### e mi ss i on t a r g e t s w ere e x c e e d e d, bu t e v e r y f ac ili t y w a s re qu i r e d t o

sub mit do c u m e n t a ti on re qu i re d und er Ru le 

### 1118 (c)( 2 ) ( B ) a nd ( c)( 2 )( C )

. E u g e n e T e s z l er t h e n

g a v e N i c o l e t h e c on t ac t i n f o r m a ti on f

o r s t a f f i n t h e c o m p li a n ce d i v i s i on w ho c ou l d ob t a i n t h e

re qu e s t e d d o c u m e n t s.

P hon e c on v e r s a t i on b e t w e e n N ic o le L a w ( E PA ) a nd M ele s i o H e rn a n d e z ( S C AQMD ) on M a r c h 23,

2011.

T h e purpo s e o f t h i s d i s c u s s i on w a s f or E PA t o d ete r mi n e w h ic h d o c u m e n t s r e qu i r e d un d e r R u le 1118

w e r e m o s t a pprop r i a te t o r e qu e s t

. T h e d i s t r i ct s t a t e d t h at s i n ce t h e i n c e p t i on o f t h e f la r e

mi n i mi z a t i on p l a n s ub m it t al r e q u i r e me n t s , on l y on e f acilit y h a s act u all y b ee n r e qu i r e d t o s ub m it a

FMP a nd t h at w a s U l t r am a r / V a le ro R e f

i n e r y

. N ic o le t h e n m e n ti o n e d s h e w a s i n te r e s te d i n v ie w i n g

t h e k i n d s o f f

la r e mi n i mi z ati on d o c u me n t s t h a t t h e s ma l le r r e f i n e r i e s s ub m i tt e d. I t w a s a g r ee d t h a t

M ele s i o w o u l d e ma i l N i c o le t h e F MP f or U lt r ama r /

V ale ro R e f

i n e r y a nd r e qu i r e d s ub m i t t al s und e r

Ru le 1 1 18 ( c ) ( 2 ) ( B ) a n d ( c ) ( 2 ) ( C ) f o r t he s m a ll e r Pa r a m oun t Pe tr o l eu m and T e s o r o R e f

i ne r y.
#### BRINEGAR v. BRINEGAR.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

May 7, 1954.

John W. Walker, Irvine, Redwine & Redwine, Winchester, for appellant.-

H. M. Shumate, Irvine, for appellee.'

PER CURIAM.

This is an .appeal from a judgment- o-f the Estill Circuit Court whereby appellant, Marvin Brinegar, who was defendant in the Circuit Court, because of his failure to pay the sum of $90 per month for support of his children was committed “to jail for an indefinite period, or until the defendant purged himself of contempt by paying the sum of $660 to the' plaintiff.”

'KRS 21.060 provides that appeals may be taken to this Court as a matter of right from all final orders and judgments of Circuit Courts in civil cases with certain named exceptions, one of them being judgments punishing contempts'. However, ’ in Roper v. Roper, 242 Ky. 658, 47 S.W.2d 517, we held that - disobedience of equity court orders in divorce proceedings is constructive contempt, commonly known as civil contempt as distinguished from criminal contempt and that an appeal lies.- KRS 21.080- provides that when the amount in controversy is as much as $200 and less than $2,500, an appeal may -be prosecuted by filing a motion that the appeal be granted and if, after an examination of the record, the court decides that the appeal should'not be granted, the motion shall be overruled without a written opinion.

The proceeding in the case at bar was had under notice, of -appeal and since a complete record has been filed in this Court, we shall treat this proceeding as being a motion for appeal since the amount in controversy and the sum of money necessary to be paid in order that appellant be purged of contempt is $660.

We have examined the record and have concluded that the chancellor was justified in entering the judgment above referred to.

The motion- for appeal is denied and the judgment affirmed.