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

No. 23635.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 9, 1947.

No appearance for appellant.

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

KRUEGER, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of the offense of an assault with intent to murder with malice and his punishment was assessed at confinement in the State penitentiary for a period of IS years.

The record is before us without a statement of the facts and without any bills of exception. The only complaint presented for review relates to the action of the trial court in declining to sustain appellant’s motion to quash the indictment in this; that the means employed in the commission of the alleged offense are not charged therein. This is not necessary in a case charging an assault with intent to murder. See Mathis v. State, 39 Tex.Cr.R. 549, *47*S.W. 464, Douglass v. State, 26 Tex.App. 109, 9 S.W. 489, 8 Am.St.Rep. 459, Price v. State, 22 Tex.App. 110, 2 S.W. 622; Davis v. State, 20 Tex.App. 302.

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

HAWKINS, P. J., absent.

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.
#### STEWART v. STATE.

No. 26991.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 12, 1954.

*840No attorney on appeal for appellant.

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

GRAVES, Presiding Judge.

The conviction is for unlawfully operating a motor vehicle upon a public highway while under the influence of intoxicating liquor; the punishment assessed is a fine of $100.

The complaint and information, as well as all other matters of procedure, appear to be regular. The record is before this court without a statement of facts or bills of exception. In the absence thereof, nothing is presented for review.

The judgment of the trial court is therefore affirmed.
Exhibit 10-P-7 Form of Final Award Notification Letter For 2003-2005 Performance
      Period.**


    Exhibit
      10-P-7

    


    


    


    Form
      of Final Award Notification Letter for 2003-2005 Performance
      Period

    


    


    


       March
      ___, 2006

    


    


    To:
        LL2
      and
      Above Employees

    


    Subject: Final
      Award for the 2003-2005 Performance Stock Right Grant

    


    The
      2003-2005 performance period for the 2003 Performance Stock Right grants
      (sometimes referred to as LTI grants) ended on December 31, 2005. The
      performance metrics for the 2003 grant were Ford Motor Company's total
      shareholder return (stock appreciation plus dividends) relative to the S&P
      500, Total Cost Performance, Global Market Share, High Time-in-Service
      Improvement and Launch Metrics in the Period. Based on the
      performance-to-metrics, the Compensation Committee has approved a final award
      of
      ___% of the initial grant.

    


    In
      recognition of the Company's accomplishments, as well as your personal
      contributions to our collective efforts, you will receive a final award in
      Ford
      common stock (net after taxes) related to your 2003 Performance Stock Right
      grant. Your final award, net of shares withheld to cover any tax liability,
      was
      deposited into a book-entry account with Computershare Investor Services during
      March. If you are a U.S.-based employee and elected to defer the final award,
      a
      credit will be made to your deferral account under the Deferred Compensation
      Plan. Your award is made under the 1998 Long-Term Incentive Plan and is subject
      to its provisions. 

    


    Thank
      you
      for your contribution to the achievement of our objectives during the 2003-2005
      performance period.
Exhibit
        4.3

      


       

      


      February
        28, 2006

      


      Iroquois
        Capital LP

      641
        Lexington Avenue

      26th
        Floor

      New
        York,
        New York

      USA
        10022

      Attention:   Joshua
        Silverman

      


      Dear
        Sirs:

      
         

        
          	Re:	Generex Biotechnology
                  Corporation
	 	- Amendment to Jan
                  20 06
                  Additional Investment Right


        

         

      

      We
        make
        reference to the additional investment right issued by Generex Biotechnology
        Corporation (the “Company”)
        to
        Iroquois Capital LP (“Iroquois”)
        on
        January 20, 2006 pursuant to which the Company, inter
        alia,
        granted
        to Iroquois the right to purchase a $1,000,000 principal amount debenture
        convertible at $1.25 per share (the “AIR”).

      


      The
        Initial Exercise Date (as that term is defined in the AIR) of the AIR is
        expressed therein as the 181st
        day
        after the date thereof. The Company hereby confirms that, in consideration
        of
        the exercise of the AIR by Iroquois and the delivery to the Company of a
        Notice
        of Exercise in respect thereof on or before the close of business on February
        28, 2006, the Company has agreed to abridge the Initial Exercise Date and
        to
        honor the aforementioned Notice of Exercise.

      


      Yours
        truly,

      


      Generex
        Biotechnology Corporation

      


      /s/
        Mark
        A. Fletcher

      


      


      Mark
        A.
        Fletcher

      Executive
        Vice-President, General Counsel

      maf:hs
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0001051719
<NAME>                        United Defense Industries, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                              35,623
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       94,847
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                        330,373
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   467,841
<PP&E>                                             219,569
<DEPRECIATION>                                      20,660
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,246,083
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              438,044
<BONDS>                                            200,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                                 1
<OTHER-SE>                                         136,740
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,246,083
<SALES>                                            342,627
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   342,627
<CGS>                                              324,123
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      363,628
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                        68
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  15,622
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (36,259)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (36,259)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (36,259)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                            0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 200 (Monday, October 16, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 61150]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-26416]



[[Page 61150]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army


Army Science Board; Notice of Closed Meeting

    In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (P.L. 92-463), announcement is made of the following 
Committee Meeting:

    Name of Committee: Army Science Board (ASB).
    Date of Meeting: 18 October 2000.
    Time of Meeting: 0730-1700.
    Place: Presidential Towers.
    Agenda: The Army Science Board's (ASB) Study Group on 
``Countermine'' will meet to have subgroup briefings and overall group 
discussion on October 18.. This meeting will be closed to the public in 
accordance with Section 552b(c) of Title 5, U.S.C., specifically 
subparagraph (1) thereof, and Title 5, U.S.C., Appendix 2, subsection 
10(d). (Please see attached Agendas.) The classified preclude opening 
any portion of this meeting. For further information, please contact 
Ms. Debbie Butler at (703) 601-1552.

Wayne Joyner,
Program Support Specialist, Army Science Board.

Army Science Board Countermine Study--Presidential Towers, Crystal 
City, VA, 18 October 2000.

Agenda

0800-0900--Introduction--CLASSIFIED--Frank Kendall
0900-0945--Wide Area Surveillance--CLASSIFIED--Dr. Irene Peden
0945-1030--Maneuver Unit Support and Route Clearing--CLASSIFIED--
Joanna Lau
1030-1115--Physical Security and Humanitarian Demining--CLASSIFIED--
Buddy Beck
1115-1230--LUNCH
1230-1315--Breaching--CLASSIFIED--Dr. Luyten
1315-1415--Basic Research and Phenomenology--CLASSIFIED--Dr. Canavan
1415-1515--Open Discussion/Closing Remarks--CLASSIFIED--Frank 
Kendall

[FR Doc. 00-26416 Filed 10-13-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710-08-M
#### The State, ex rel. Stine, *v.*Atkinson, Admr. of Bureau of Unemployment Compensation, et al.

(No. 27722

Decided November 22, 1939.)

*Mr. Jerome*Goldman, for relator.

*Mr. Thomas J. Herbert,*attorney general, and *Mr. John P. Walsh,*for respondents.

*73By the Court.

Under Section 1345-13, General Code (116 Ohio Laws, pt. 2, 286, 298), the power of appointment was exercised by the Unemployment Compensation Commission, subject to the civil service laws, but under Section 1346-1, General Code (Section 2, S. B. No. 57, 93 General Assembly, 118 Ohio Laws, —), the powers and duties of that commission were vested solely in the administrator of the Bureau of Unemployment Compensation.

Assuming relator was lawfully appointed and unlawfully dismissed as alleged, the administrator is the only person to whom a writ of mandamus may issue compelling reinstatement of the relator. Section 12283, General Code.

The demurrer will be sustained for misjoinder of respondents and the relator will be granted 20 days in which to plead further.

*Demurrer sustained.*

Weygandt, C. J., Day, Zimmerman, Williams, Myers, Matthias and Hart, JJ., concur.
Arizona Relay Service 7-1-1

211 West Aspen Avenue, Flagstaff, Arizona 86001

Main & TDD (928) 774-5281 • Fax (928) 779-7696

 

United States of America

Department of Transportation

Office of the Secretary

Washington, D.C.

RE: Proposal Under the Small Community Air Service Development 

Program, Docket DOT-OST-2011-0119

1) Application submitted by: 

City of Flagstaff, Flagstaff Pulliam Airport 

2) Sponsored by:

City of Flagstaff

211 West Aspen Ave.

Flagstaff, AZ 86001

DUNS Number - 088302625

Tax ID Number - 86-6000244

3) Congressional District - 01

City of Flagstaff
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                              40
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,231
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                         32
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,445
<PP&E>                                           2,984
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   5,544
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,475
<BONDS>                                            584
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       2,494
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     5,544
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 3,394
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,223
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    48
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  29
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    219
<INCOME-TAX>                                        85
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                134
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    (1)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       133
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
**REGULATORY EVALUATION**

**Directorate Identifier:** 201 3

- NM

- 1 3 5

- AD

**Executive Order 12866:** Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:** Is the AD significant? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:** This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. I s it appropriate t o include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES ( ) explain NO (X)
Swanson , Bria n (OST ) t^OT - OiX-Tjoo o - (aVf^ S From : Devany , Denni s (OST ) Sent : Friday , Januar y07 , 201 1 2:2 8 P M To : Swanson , Bria n (OST ) Subject : FW : (n o subject )

From : Kalaupapatim@aol.co m [mailto:Kalaupapatim(a)aol.com 1 Sent : Friday , January07 , 201 1 2:0 8 P M To : Devany , Denni s (OST ) Subject : (n o subject ) Dea r Mr . DeVany , •:l U > -.- ? 4= - r o -.-•—'-" ^ m-^ mNTOFTATtONRATION c y j

A s aresiden t

of Kalaupapa , i t

i s essentia l tha t

w e hav e reliable , affordabl e ai r transportation , i n an d ou t o f ou r community . Ther e i s n o othe r wa y t o d o s o othe r

tha n hik e u p anearl y 2000f t clif f side . Th e curren t rat e t o fl y fro mKalaupap at o Hoolehu aR/ T i s $487.6 5 (fo r a5 min . flight) . Roun dtri p t o Honolul u i s $507.1 0 (3 0 min.) . I t i s agrea t

hardshi p o n th e staf

f an dPatient s tha t

d o no t ge t asubsid y o r reimbursement . Th e Roun dtri p cos t fro mHoolehu at o Honolul u i s $67.5 0 bu t w e hav e t o pa y th e $48 7 t o ge t

t o Hoolehu afirst . Kalaupap aver y muc hneed s th e EA S s o w e ca n hav e affordabl e ai r fare s t o b e abl e t o ge t

i n an dou t

o f Kalaupapa . Than k

Yo u fo r you r time . Ti mRichmon d Foo dServic e Superviso r Kalaupap aSettlemen t 808.567.692 5
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**783 CA 15-02057**  PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, CURRAN, AND TROUTMAN, JJ.

BUFFALO BIODIESEL, INC., PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,

V ORDER
TAJ MAHAL, INC., DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH G. MAKOWSKI, LLC, BUFFALO (APRIL J. ORLOWSKI OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT.
LAW OFFICE OF ANDREW J. STIMSON, BUFFALO (ANDREW J. STIMSON OF COUNSEL), AND CHRISTOPHER D. SMITH & ASSOCIATES, BLASDELL, FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

Appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Paula L. Feroleto, J.), entered August 19, 2015. The order and judgment, inter alia, granted that part of the motion of defendant seeking dismissal of the complaint.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order and judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Entered: September 30, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
# Επίσημη Εφημερίδα C 27A/27 Ι

| | ISSN 1977-0901 |
| --- | --- |
| Επίσημη Εφημερίδα
  της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης | C 27A |
| | |
| Έκδοση στην ελληνική γλώσσα | Ανακοινώσεις και Πληροφορίες | 58ό έτος27 Ιανουαρίου 2015 |

ISSN 1977-0901

Επίσημη Εφημερίδα

της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης

C 27A

Έκδοση στην ελληνική γλώσσα

Ανακοινώσεις και Πληροφορίες

58ό έτος27 Ιανουαρίου 2015

---

| Ανακοίνωση αριθ | Περιεχόμενα | Σελίδα |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | Διορθωτικά |
| 2015/C 027A/01 | Διορθωτικό στην πρόσκληση εκδήλωσης ενδιαφέροντος — Συμβασιούχοι υπάλληλοι διοίκησης-ερευνητές (ομάδα καθηκόντων IV) στον τομέα της κοινοβουλευτικής έρευνας — (EE C 55 Α της 26.2.2014 ) | 1 |

Ανακοίνωση αριθ

Περιεχόμενα

Σελίδα

Διορθωτικά

2015/C 027A/01

Διορθωτικό στην πρόσκληση εκδήλωσης ενδιαφέροντος — Συμβασιούχοι υπάλληλοι διοίκησης-ερευνητές (ομάδα καθηκόντων IV) στον τομέα της κοινοβουλευτικής έρευνας — (EE C 55 Α της 26.2.2014 )

(EE C 55 Α της 26.2.2014 )

1

---

| EL | |
| --- | --- |

EL

---

Διορθωτικά

| 27.1.2015 | EL | Επίσημη Εφημερίδα της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης | CA 27/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.1.2015

EL

Επίσημη Εφημερίδα της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης

CA 27/1

---

Διορθωτικό στην πρόσκληση εκδήλωσης ενδιαφέροντος — Συμβασιούχοι υπάλληλοι διοίκησης-ερευνητές (ομάδα καθηκόντων IV) στον τομέα της κοινοβουλευτικής έρευνας

(Επίσημη Εφημερίδα της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης
  C 55 Α της 26ης Φεβρουαρίου 2014
  )

(2015/C 027 A/01)

Στη σελίδα 4, στον τίτλο VIII, τελευταία πρόταση:

αντί:

«Η σύμβαση θα συναφθεί σύμφωνα με τα άρθρα 3α, 84 και 85 του ΚεΛΠ»

διάβαζε:

«Η σύμβαση θα συναφθεί σύμφωνα με τα άρθρα 3β, 84 και 88 του ΚεΛΠ».

---
#### NORRIS v. NORRIS.

No. 2676.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Waco.

May 16, 1946.

Rehearing Denied June 6, 1946.

Lewis M. Seay, of Groesbeck, for appellant.

Clarence Ferguson, of Groesbeck, for ap-pellee.

HALE, Justice.

Appellant sued her husband for divorce and for the custody of their minor child. The case was tried before the court without a jury. Judgment was rendered (1) granting the divorce and (2) awarding the child’s custody (a) to appellant during the months of June, July and August and (b) to appellee during the remainder of the year. Appellant says the judgment should be reversed in part because the evidence shows she was better qualified than appel-lee to have the custody of the child.

The prime consideration in the disposition of a child custody case is the highest welfare and best interest of the child. Legate v. Legate, 87 Tex. 248, 28 S.W. 281; Greenlaw v. Dilworth, Tex.Com.App., 299 S.W. 875, pt. 10; Schultz v. Brown, Tex.Civ.App., 152 S.W.2d 801, pt. 1, error dismissed; Kelly v. Page, Tex.Civ.App, 186 S.W.2d 735, pt. 4, err. ref. In the judicial determination of such issue the trial judge is vested with broad discretionary powers. Bateman v. Bateman, Tex.Civ.App., 188 S.W.2d 866, pt. 3, error dismissed. The exercise of such powers will not be disturbed upon appeal unless it be shown that the court below abused the sound discretion so vested in it. Epstein v. Epstein, Tex.Civ.App., 84 S.W.2d 894; Lyle v. Lyle, Tex.Civ.App., 141 S.W.2d 960; Wrather v. Wrather, Tex.Civ.App., 154 S.W.2d 955, pt. 1, err. ref.; Thompson v. Haney, Tex.Civ.App., 191 S.W.2d 491, pt. 4.

Fourteen witnesses testified at the trial of this case, eight on behalf of appellant and six on behalf of appellee. Although we have carefully considered all of the evidence thus adduced, we do not think any useful purpose would be served by setting forth an extended summary thereof or by pointing out the conflicting conclusions of fact which in our opinion might reasonably be drawn therefrom. It appears that neither party to the action has a suitable home of his or her own to which either might take the child at this time, appellee relying upon the aid of his parents' *814and appellant depending upon the assistance of her grandparents for the proper care of their offspring. Viewing the evidence as a whole in the light most favorable to the judgment, as it is our duty to do, we cannot say the trial judge abused his discretion in finding that the child’s welfare would be best subserved under the existing circumstances by awarding its custody to appellant during the summer months and to appellee during the remainder of the year.

Therefore, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.
Exhibit 10.1


    
      

    

     

     

    

      Exhibit
        10.1

      


      


      February
        20, 2006

      


      Mr.
        Pat
        L. Flinn

      1050
        N.
        Waterway Drive

      Fort
        Meyers, FL 33919

      


      


      Dear
        Pat,

      


      For
        personal reasons I would like to retire from the Theragenics’ Board effective
        with the 2006 Annual Meeting.

      


      Sincerely,

      


      /s/
        Earnest W. Deavenport, Jr.
**Exhibit 32.B****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 on Form 10-Q forthe period ending June 30, 2006, of Tennessee GasPipeline Company (the “Company”) as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), I, John R. Sult, Senior VicePresident, Chief Financial Officer and Controller, certify(i) that the Report fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934, as amended, and (ii) that the information containedin the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.     /s/ John R. Sult           John R. Sult *Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer* *and Controller* *(Principal Accounting and Financial Officer)*   August 7, 2006A signed original of this written statement required bySection 906 has been provided to Tennessee Gas PipelineCompany and will be retained by Tennessee Gas Pipeline Companyand furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.
#### Sam CHATTON, Appellant, v. STATE of TEXAS, Appellee.

No. 23750.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 4, 1947.

No appearance, for appellant.

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

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

GRAVES, Judge.

The conviction is for murder. The penalty assessed is confinement in the state penitentiary for a term of two years.

Since perfecting his appeal, appellant has filed a written motion, duly verified, requesting the privilege of withdrawing the same. The motion is granted and the appeal is ordered dismissed.