alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.2

Mr. J. Richard Jones
1515 Oak Hollow Drive
Milford, MI 48380

                                December 7, 1998

Dear Dick,

The following is the confirmation of how we will execute the specifics of the
consulting agreement between you (the consultant), and Dura Automotive Systems,
Inc.

REMUNERATION:

Commencing May 1, 1998, ending May 5, 2007.
Years 1 through 4                                   $  300,000.00 per annum
Years 5 through 9                                   $   60,000    per annum
                                                    -------------
Total                                               $1,500,000.00

To be paid twice monthly, through the Dura payroll system with appropriate
withholdings being deducted from the gross pay and remitted by Dura on the
consultants behalf.

HEALTH CARE:

For years 1 through 5 Dura will cover the consultant under the Dura policies,
starting January 1st 1999. Consultant will be covered by Trident Blue Cross
program from May 1st to December 31, 1998.

For years 6 through 9 consultant will be covered by the Dura program but will
have the average cost per employee deducted from his compensation to pay for
this benefit. (Based on the 1998 average $703.76/mth or $8,445.12/year)

AUTOMOBILE:

Consultant will continue to drive the car provided by Trident until the end of
November 1998 and will be covered by Dura automobile policy until that time.

After the lease expiration, in place of the company provided automobile, the
consultant will receive an allowance of $8,300 per annum until the end of year
5. The Company will reimburse the cost of insurance until the end of year 5.

COUNTRY CLUB:

Commencing May 1, 1998 and through year 5, the consultants gross pay will be
increased to include an allowance of $9,000.00 per year.( for practical purposes
the actual costs will be paid for May - September 1998 and the allowance will
commence October 1998.)

<PAGE>

LIFE INSURANCE:

For year 1 through 5, the company coverage will be $200,000.00, the consultant,
may purchase individual term life insurance for up to $700,000.00 of additional
coverage and submit the expense for reimbursement. (Cost quoted from State Farm
is $2,109.00)


It has been agreed that the $2,109.00 will be added to the annual payroll in
lieu of coverage.

EXCESS BENEFIT PLAN:

The Company will purchase an annuity on the consultants behalf which will pay
$21,285.00 per annum for the consultant's and his surviving spouses lifetime,
with payments commencing on the 1st day of the month in which the consultant
reaches age 65.

OTHER EXPENSES:

Per section 3(b), Dura will reimburse the consultant for all reasonable expenses
incurred by him in the course of performing his duties under the Consulting
Agreement, for years 1 through 5-Attached is a copy of the Dura expense policy,
forms and automobile policy. Stephen Graham
Exhibit 23.1

               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the  incorporation  by  reference in the  Registration  Statements
(Form S-3 No. 33-81172,  Form S-3 No. 33-88008,  Form S-3 No. 33-62851, Form S-3
No. 333-01485,  Form S-3 No. 333-20097, Form S-8 No. 333-12949, and Form S-4 No.
333-17817)  and related  Prospectuses  of our report dated March 18, 1997,  with
respect to the financial  statements of National Energy Group,  Inc. included in
its Annual  Report on Form 10-K for the year ended  December 31, 1996 filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission.


                                                            ERNST & YOUNG LLP


Dallas, Texas
March 28, 1997
exv10w2



 






Exhibit 10.2




Form of Annual Executive Compensation Notification

200__ FISCAL YEAR EXECUTIVE OFFICER BASE SALARY, INCENTIVE BONUS PROGRAM

and DEFERRED COMPENSATION




Name:                                         




Base Salary




$                     per year




200[ ] Incentive Bonus Program



You shall have the opportunity to earn additions to your base salary through the award of the
following bonus pursuant to the D.R. Horton, Inc. Amended and Restated 2000 Incentive Bonus Plan
(the “Plan”).





	 	(1)  	___percent (___%) of consolidated pre-tax income of the Company for the
month of December 200___.
	 
	 	(2)  	___percent (___%) of consolidated pre-tax income of the Company for the
quarter ending March 31, 200___.
	 
	 	(3)  	___percent (___%) of consolidated pre-tax income of the Company for the
quarter ending June 30, 200___.
	 
	 	(4)  	___percent (___%) of consolidated pre-tax income of the Company for the
quarter ending September 30, 200___.




The foregoing award (up to the limit in (ii) in the following sentence) is intended to satisfy the
requirements for “Performance-Based Compensation” under the Plan. In accordance with
the provisions of the Plan: (i) the Compensation Committee retains the discretion to adjust your
award, in a manner that does not increase the value of such award, at any time prior to the payment
thereof, and (ii) the maximum awards payable to you under the Plan with respect to any fiscal year
of the Company shall not exceed 2.0% of consolidated pre-tax income for that year, calculated in
accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.




Deferred Compensation



The Company has established two Deferred Compensation Plans in which you may participate.





The D.R. Horton Deferred Compensation Plan provides for voluntary income deferrals by you.




SERP No. 2 is a promise by the Company to pay retirement benefits to you. If you are
employed by the Company on September 30, 200___, the Company will establish a liability to
you equal to 10% of your annual base pay as of October 1, 200___. This liability will accrue
earnings in future years at a rate established by the administrative committee.


Please refer to the plan summaries and prospectuses related to the plans and the formal plan
documents, each of which has previously been provided to you, for a more detailed description of
the terms and conditions of each plan.
#### SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE CO. v. HUMPHRIES.

No. 3784.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Beaumont.

Feb. 6, 1941.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 12, 1941.

John H. Bickett, Jr., and C. M. Means, both of Dallas, and C. E. Coolidge, of Houston, for appellant.

Gaston H. Wilder, Jr., of Beaumont, for appellee.

WALKER, Chief Justice.

The theory of appellee’s petition is that his mules escaped from his pasture onto the public highway, through a gap made in his fence by appellant, which gap it negligently failed to repair; and that as a proximate result of appellant’s negligence in failing to repair the fence, the mules were struck on the highway by a passing-automobile and killed.

The jury fixed the value of the mules at $300; the evidence supports this finding.

On the undisputed facts, appellant made a gap in appellee’s pasture fence. The jury found that appellant “failed to repair the fence,” and that this was negligence; and that the mules escaped from the pasture through the gap in the fence made and left by appellant. We overrule appellant’s assignments that these findings are without support in the evidence.

The jury gave an affirmative answer to the following question: “Do you find, from the preponderance of the evidence, that the negligence (if any) of the said Rogers or his crew in failing to replace plaintiff’s fence at said time and place (if they did fail to replace it) was a proximate cause of plaintiff’s mules escaping from his inclosure and being killed?”

We overrule the exception that this issue was multifarious. On the undisputed facts, the mules, after escaping through the gap in the fence, were killed on the highway by a passing automobile. As a matter of law, the presence of the mules on the highway was a proximate result of their escaping from the pasture. There was no fact issue against the conclusion that their presence on the highway was a proximate cause of their death. The only controverted fact issue submitted by this question was whether the failure of Rogers or his crew (appellant’s agents) to repair the fence was a proximate cause of the escape of the mules from the pasture. The evidence sufficiently supports the verdict on this issue.

The judgment of the lower court should be affirmed, and it, is' accordingly so ordered.

Affirmed.
103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 205

JOINT RESOLUTION

Designating the week beginning October 31, 1993,

Week’’.as ‘‘National Health Information Management
103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 205

JOINT RESOLUTION

Designating the week beginning October 31, 1993, as

‘‘National Health Information Management Week’’.

Whereas accurate, timely, and complete medical records and

related health information are vital in planning and providing for quality health care for the people of the

United States;

Whereas such records and information are vital to providing

health care to an individual beginning at the birth of the

individual and continuing throughout the life of the individual;

Whereas public concern about the quality, appropriateness,

and effectiveness of health care is escalating;
2

•HJ 205 EH

Whereas specific skills in evaluating and reporting the results

of health care are required to provide public accountability;

Whereas equitable third-party reimbursement for health care

is dependent on health information that is collected, analyzed, classified, verified, and disseminated;

Whereas public awareness of patient rights, including the

right of a patient to access the patient’s own medical information, is increasing;

Whereas the needs and requirements for health information

of the health care industry and the use of the information

by the industry are changing rapidly;

Whereas the rate of such changes will continue to increase

as new health care technology is used and new health

care reform policies are promulgated;

Whereas the 35,000 members of the American Health Information Management Association are the health information leaders of the United States; and

Whereas such members have demonstrated commitment to,

and expertise in, health information management: Now,

therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That the week beginning October 31, 1993, is designated

4 as ‘‘National Health Information Management Week’’,

5 and the President is authorized and requested to issue a

6 proclamation calling on the people of the United States
3

•HJ 205 EH

1 to observe the week with appropriate ceremonies and

2 activities.

Passed the House of Representatives October 26,

1993.

Attest:

Clerk.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-7754
BILL JONES, Petitioner - Appellant, versus NORTH CAROLINA ATTORNEY GENERAL; TOM C. MARTIN, Respondents - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge. (CA-96-979-2) Submitted: February 12, 1998 Decided: March 4, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bill Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe Delforge, III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. 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 relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge andfind no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Jones v. North Carolina Attorney General , No. CA-96-979-2 (M.D.N.C. Nov. 4, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas December 7, 2022
No. 04-22-00716-CR
EX PARTE George TROTTI , From the 379th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018CR7385-W2 Honorable Ron Rangel, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R On November 4, 2022, this court ordered Appellant to show cause regarding this court’s jurisdiction to review his habeas appeal, which stemmed from a felony case. Appellant did not respond. Nevertheless, on this court’s further review, the record showed that this court has jurisdiction over the appeal since Appellant pleaded nolo contendere to only one misdemeanor offense pursuant to a plea agreement with the State. See Dahesh v. State , 51 S.W.3d 300, 302 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, pet. ref’d) (citing Ex parte Jordan , 659 S.W.2d 827, 828 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983)). However, the clerk’s record does not contain the trial court’s certification regarding Appellant’s right to appeal. Contra T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 25.2(a)(2); Ex parte Tarango , 116 S.W.3d 201, 203 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2003, no pet.) (determining that certification requirement applies to orders “denying habeas corpus relief”). We ORDER the trial court to complete and provide to the Bexar County District Clerk a certification regarding the defendant’s right to appeal within TWENTY DAYS of the date of this order. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 34.5(c)(2); accord Cortez v. State , 420 S.W.3d 803, 806 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (“Under subsection (c)(2), the appellate court may order the trial court to prepare and file the certification of the defendant’s right of appeal, and the trial-court clerk must prepare and file in the appellate court a supplemental record containing the certification.”). The supplemental clerk’s record must be filed in this court within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this order.

_________________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, JusticeIN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 7th day of December, 2022.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
Exhibit 11


                               CRW Financial, Inc.
                       Net Income Per Share Reconciliation
               For the Three Months Ended March 31, 1997 and 1996
                                   (Unaudited)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                          March 31,       March 31, 
                                                            1996            1997    
                                                            ----            ----    
<S>                                                      <C>            <C>         
Calculation of Net Income Per Common Share:                                         
                                                                                    
Weighted average number of shares outstanding             3,572,052       5,703,765 
Assumed exercise of options and warrants                  4,449,864       2,615,733 
Less assumed repurchase                                    (714,411)       (698,315)
                                                         ----------      ---------- 
Shares used in computation of net income                                            
  per common share                                        7,307,505       7,621,183 
                                                         ==========      ========== 
Net income for the three months ended                    $   87,000      $1,597,000 
                                                                                    
Adjustment to net income for the                                                    
  assumed reduction in interest                                                     
  expense, net of tax                                        22,000            --   
                                                         ----------      ---------- 
Adjusted net income for computation of net income                                   
  per common share                                       $  109,000      $1,597,000 
                                                         ==========      ========== 
Net Income Per Common Share                              $     0.01      $     0.21 
                                                         ==========      ========== 
</TABLE>
Case 5:22-cr-00083-H-BQ Document 110 Filed 01/10/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID 254
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM BWAY
CORPORATION AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-03-1999             OCT-03-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-04-1999             SEP-28-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-04-1999             APR-04-1999
<CASH>                                           2,959                   2,959
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   45,923                  45,923
<ALLOWANCES>                                       526                     526
<INVENTORY>                                     52,409                  52,409
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               128,451                 128,451
<PP&E>                                         184,313                 184,313
<DEPRECIATION>                                  40,055                  40,055
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 368,005                 368,005
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           97,209                  97,209
<BONDS>                                        163,900                 163,900
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                            99                      99
<OTHER-SE>                                      81,178                  81,178
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   368,005                 368,005
<SALES>                                        121,536                 226,522
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               121,536                 226,522
<CGS>                                          102,504                 191,805
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  115,827                 218,364
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (264)                   (182)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,505                   7,189
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,709                   8,158
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,425                   3,467
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,284                   4,691
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,284                   4,691
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .35                     .50
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .35                     .49
        

</TABLE>
111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 136 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), 

3 SECTION 1. USE OF CAPITOL GROUNDS TO CELEBRATE 

4 CITIZENSHIP DAY. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—The National Korean American 

6 Service and Education Consortium (in this resolution re7 ferred to as the ‘‘sponsor’’) shall be permitted to 
2 

•HCON 136 EH 

1 sponsor a public event (in this resolution referred to as 

2 the ‘‘event’’) on the Capitol Grounds to celebrate Citizen3 ship Day. 

4 (b) DATE OF EVENT.—The event shall be held on 

5 September 17, 2009, or on such other day as the Speaker 

6 of the House of Representatives and the Committee on 

7 Rules and Administration of the Senate jointly designate. 

8 SEC. 2. TERMS AND CONDITIONS. 

9 (a) IN GENERAL.—Under conditions to be prescribed 

10 by the Architect of the Capitol and the Capitol Police 

11 Board, the event shall be— 

12 (1) free of admission charge and open to the 

13 public; and 

14 (2) arranged not to interfere with the needs of 

15 Congress. 

16 (b) EXPENSES AND LIABILITIES.—The sponsor shall 

17 assume full responsibility for all expenses and liabilities 

18 incident to all activities associated with the event. 

19 SEC. 3. EVENT PREPARATIONS. 

20 Subject to the approval of the Architect of the Cap21 itol, the sponsor is authorized to erect upon the Capitol 

22 Grounds such stage, sound amplification devices, and 

23 other related structures and equipment as may be required 

24 for the event. 
3 

•HCON 136 EH 

1 SEC. 4. ENFORCEMENT OF RESTRICTIONS. 

2 The Capitol Police Board shall provide for enforce3 ment of the restrictions contained in section 5104(c) of 

4 title 40, United States Code, concerning sales, advertise5 ments, displays, and solicitations on the Capitol Grounds, 

6 as well as other restrictions applicable to the Capitol 

7 Grounds, in connection with the event. 

Passed the House of Representatives September 9, 

2009. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 136 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Authorizing the use of the Capitol Grounds for a 

celebration of Citizenship Day.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Dean Gates, Appellant.

(Appeal No. 2.)

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that the *996suppression court erred in denying his motion to exclude evidence of observations made by the police during a search of his business. There is no merit to defendant’s claim that his father did not have the authority to consent to the search. In our view, the circumstances at the time of the search reasonably indicated that defendant’s father had apparent authority to consent to the search and voluntarily did so *(see, People v Adams,*53 NY2d 1, *cert denied*454 US 854).

We have examined defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Dadd, J.—aggravated harassment.) Present—Denman, ? J. P., Boomer, Pine, Davis and Lowery, JJ.
#### STANDARD INVESTMENT CO. v. R. T. NUTT.

No. 3735.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Beaumont.

Oct. 31, 1940.

H. B. Houston, of Dallas, and Sanders & McLeroy, of Center, for appellant.

E. B. Lewis and Davis & Avery, all of Center, for appellee.

WALKER, Chief Justice.

This appeal was prosecuted from the county court of Shelby county. No errors appearing on appellant’s assignments and propositions, the judgment is affirmed, on authority of Texas & N. O. R. Co. v. Futch, Tex.Civ.App., 127 S.W.2d 1040, without written opinion.
<PAGE>
(NSA LOGO)                                                          EXHIBIT 23.2

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS


We hereby consent to the references to our firm and to the use of our reports
effective December 31, 2002; December 31, 2003; and December 31, 2004 in the NEG
Holding LLC Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004 to
be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about March 15, 2005.


                                        NETHERLAND, SEWELL & ASSOCIATES, INC.

                                        By: Frederic D. Sewell
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Frederic D. Sewell
                                            Chairman and Chief Executive Officer


Dallas, Texas
March 15, 2005