alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Official Journal C 285E/2011

| | ISSN 1725-2423
  doi:10.3000/17252423.CE2011.285.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 285E |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5429 September 2011 |

ISSN 1725-2423

doi:10.3000/17252423.CE2011.285.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 285E

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5429 September 2011

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | III   Preparatory acts |
| | COUNCIL |
| 2011/C 285E/01 | Position (EU) No 9/2011 of the Council at First Reading with a view to the adoption of a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a European Union action for the European Heritage Label Adopted by the Council on 19 July 2011 | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

III   Preparatory acts

COUNCIL

2011/C 285E/01

Position (EU) No 9/2011 of the Council at First Reading with a view to the adoption of a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a European Union action for the European Heritage Label Adopted by the Council on 19 July 2011

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

FORT WORTH DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA § 

 § 

VS. § CRIMINAL NO. 4:22-CR-341-Y 

 § 

DARIUS PATRICKEL EDWARDS (1) § 

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND ADJUDGING DEFENDANT GUILTY 

The Court has reviewed all relevant matters of record in this case, 

including especially (1) the Consent to Administration of Guilty Plea 

and Allocution by United States Magistrate Judge and (2) the Report of 

Action and Recommendation on Plea Before the United States Magistrate 

Judge. No objections to either have been filed within fourteen (14) 

days of service in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Therefore, 

the Court concludes that the report and recommendation of the magistrate 

judge on the plea of guilty is correct, and it is hereby accepted by the 

Court. Accordingly, the Court accepts the plea of guilty, and defendant 

is hereby adjudged guilty. The defendant’s sentence will be imposed in 

accordance with the Court’s sentencing scheduling order. 

SIGNED December 15, 2022. 

 

 _________________________________ 

 TERRY R. MEANS 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:22-cr-00341-Y Document 38 Filed 12/15/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 51
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of LeCroy Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
September 27, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Thomas H. Reslewic, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to
§ 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



| | (1) | The Form 10-Q 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       |  |  |  |                        
|---------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|Date: November 5, 2008 |  |  |  |                        
|                       |  |  |  | /s/ Thomas H. Reslewic 
|                       |  |  |  | Thomas H. Reslewic     
|                       |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will
be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Ex parte DAWS.

No. 21278.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 16, 1940.

R. M. Gardner, of Amarillo, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

After a hearing on a writ of habeas corpus appellant was remanded to custody. Hence this appeal.

It appears from the record that appellant was held under a capias issued after the return of an indictment charging him with the offense of burglary. Pending appellant’s appeal from the order of the district court remanding him to custody, the clerk of the district court of Potter County forwarded to this court a certified copy of an order of the district court of that county granting the district attorney’s motion to dismiss appellant’s case. The order of the court below reads in part as follows: “And the court, having heard and con*948sidered said motion is of the opinion that the reason therein assigned is good and sufficient to justify a dismissal of said cause. It is therefore ordered by the court that said motion be and the same is hereby sustained and the defendant go hence without day and said cause dismissed.”

In view of the fact that appellant has been released from custody, it becomes unnecessary to consider the questions presented by the record herein relative to the alleged illegal restraint of appellant. It follows that the appeal should be dismissed.

The appeal is dismissed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commis-sionof Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
#### RICHEY v. CENTRAL SECURITIES CO.

No. 13723.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

July 12, 1939.

*122Clarence R. Boatwright and Chas. W. Duke, both of San Antonio, for plaintiff in error.

Hicks, Dickson & Lange, of San Antonio, for defendant in error.

SMITH, Chief Justice.

In this suit, brought in the nature of a bill of discovery, under Art. 2002, R.S.1925, Central Securities Company procured an order of the District Court requiring R. A. Richey to “answer fully and completely under oath, the interrogatories of discovery attached to plaintiff’s' bill of discovery herein and that the defendant (Richey) return and file herein his answers, under oath, to such interrogatories on or before” a stated date.

The order was granted on March 27, 1939, and, but not until eleven days later, on April 7th, Richey gave notice of appeal therefrom. On April 8th he filed his appeal bond.

(Thereafter, on April 14th, Richey filed in this Court his petition for writ of error and supersedeas bond, together with transcript of the record below.)

The Securities Company has timely filed its motion in this Court for affirmance on a certificate accompanying the motion and showing the foregoing facts.

It will be noted that notice of appeal was not given within the two days required by. statute, Art. 2253, R.S.1925, as amended by Acts 1927, 40th Leg. p. 21, ch. 15, § 1, Vernon’s Ann.Civ.St. art. 2253.

The notice not having been given within the prescribed two days it could not serve as the basis of appeal, or give this Court jurisdiction over the cause. Having no jurisdiction, this Court has no power to affirm on certificate. Kirby v. South Texas Nat. Bank, Tex.Civ.App., 127 S.W.2d 955; Bargna v. Bargna, Tex.Civ.App., 127 S.W. 1156, 1157.

The motion must therefore be denied.

While the point has not been mentioned by the parties in connection with this motion, a serious question lurks in the premises as to whether appeal or writ of error lies from an order granting a bill of discovery, such as this. Equitable Trust Co. v. Jackson, 129 Tex. 2, 101 S.W.2d 552; Texas Wheat Growers’ Association v. Gough, Tex.Civ.App., 70 S.W.2d 818, writ of error denied; Samuels v.. Finkelstein, Tex.Civ.App,, 25 S.W.2d 923, writ of error dismissed. Decision of the question, however, must be deferred for consideration in the writ of error proceeding.

The motion to affirm on certificate is denied.
```

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 20 (Friday, January 30, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5109-5110]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-01802]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-9019-3]

Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

AGENCY: Office of Federal Activities, General Information (202) 564-
7146 or http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/.

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements Filed 01/19/2015 
Through 01/23/2015 Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

Notice

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public 
its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment 
letters on EISs are available at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/eisdata.html.

EIS No. 20150019, Draft EIS, USACE, NC, Town of Ocean Isle Beach 
Shoreline Management Project, Comment Period Ends: 03/09/2015, Contact: 
Tyler Crumbley 910-251-4170
EIS No. 20150020, Draft EIS, NOAA, 00, PROGRAMMATIC--Habitat 
Restoration Activities Implemented throughout the Coastal United 
States, Comment Period Ends: 03/20/2015, Contact: Frederick Sutter 301-
427-8600
EIS No. 20150021, Final EIS, NMFS, 00, Recreational Red Snapper Sector 
Separation, Amendment 40 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Reef 
Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico, Review Period Ends: 03/02/2015, 
Contact: Roy Crabtree 727-824-5301
EIS No. 20150022, Draft Supplement, BOEM, 00, Gulf of Mexico Outer 
Continental Shelf (OCS) Oil and Gas Lease Sales 2016 and 2017, Central 
Planning Area Lease Sales 241 and 247; Eastern Planning Area Lease 
Sales 226, Comment Period Ends: 03/16/2015, Contact: Gary Goeke 504-
736-3233
EIS No. 20150023, Final Supplement, USN, 00, Surveillance Towed Array 
Sensor System Low Frequency Active (SURTASS LFA) Sonar Systems, Review 
Period Ends: 03/02/2015, Contact: Cynthia Morgan 703-695-8266 EIS No. 
20150024, Final EIS, FHWA, ME, I-395/Route 9 Transportation System, 
Review Period Ends: 03/02/2015, Contact: Mark Hasselmann 207-512-4913
EIS No. 20150025, Final EIS, FERC, 00, Algonquin Incremental Market 
Project, Review Period Ends: 03/02/2015, Contact: Maggie Suter 202-502-
6463
EIS No. 20150026, Final Supplement, USFS, WY, Long Term Special Use 
Authorization for Wyoming Game and Fish Commission to Use National 
Forest System Lands for their Winter Elk Management Activities at 
Alkali Creek Feedground, Review Period Ends: 03/16/2015, Contact: Pam 
Bode 307-739-5513

Amended Notices

EIS No. 20140354, Draft EIS, USACE, FL, South Central Palm Beach Island 
Comprehensive Shoreline Stabilization Project, Comment Period Ends: 02/
25/2015, Contact: Garett Lips 561-674-2421
Revision to FR Notice Published 12/12/2014; Extending Comment Period 
from 01/26/2015 to 2/25/2015

[[Page 5110]]

    Dated: January 27, 2015.
Cliff Rader,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 2015-01802 Filed 1-29-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
#### SINGLETON et al. v. STATE.

No. 20873.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 28, 1940.

Tom L. Robinson, of Gatesville, and F. H. Hammond, of Burnet, for appellants.

• Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

GRAVES, Judge.

This cause is practically identical with our No. 20872, 137 S.W.2d 21, the same appellants, the same class of felony, and the same facts, except one case is for the theft of two sheep, and one for the theft of. three sheep from the same person, the dates of the offenses being only one day apart.

The same facts, procedure, and practically identical bills, with the same trial court’s qualifications.

We are of the opinion that the same rules of law govern this cause as were announced in the above numbered companion case, and on the reasoning and authorities cited in No. 20872 this judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
#### HODGES v. STATE.

No. 20947.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 27, 1940.

On Appellant’s Motion to Reinstate Appeal May 15, 1940.

M. E. Lawrence, of Eastland, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

*180HAW'KINS, Presiding Judge.

Conviction is for selling whisky in Brown County, which is alleged to be dry area; punishment assessed being a fine of $200.

The appeal must be dismissed for. a defective recognizance, wherein it is recited that appellant had been convicted of the “offense of selling liquor.” Selling liquor is not an offense unless it be done in dry territory. There is no recital'in the recognizance that appellant had been convicted of a misdemeanor as is set out in Article 831, C.C.P.

The same defect appears in this cause as in I. B. Burns, Sr. v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 140 S.W.2d 175, opinion dismissing appeal of this date, and the appeal in the present cause is dismissed for the same reason.

On Appellant's Motion to Reinstate Appeal.

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

The appeal was heretofore dismissed on March 27, 1940 because of a defective recognizance. By supplemental transcript it is shown that the defect has been remedied by a proper appeal bond. The appeal is therefore reinstated.

No statement of facts is in the record.

Appellant was charged with selling whiskey in Brown County, which was alleged under proper averments to be “dry area.’’ It was also alleged that appellant had theretofore been convicted of a similar offense.

The charge of the court conforms to facts provable under the State’s pleadings, and in the absence of the facts we are in no position to appraise the objections to the Court’s instructions.

The same is true with reference to some -of the bills of exception brought forward. The bill which criticizes the complaint and information is not meritorious.

Bill No. 4 reserves' exception because the court did not quash the complaint and information, it apparently being the contention of appellant that it was necessary for the complaint to be attached to the information. There is no merit in .such contention. The court qualifies the bill by stating that the information was based on a valid complaint, which was on file among the papers in the cause, and said complaint is found in the transcript.

No error appears from the record. The ’ judgment is affirmed.,
Exhibit 31.2  Certification of Chief Financial Officer  I, William M. Baker, Chief Financial Officer of SBM Certificate Company, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of SBM Certificate Company;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:  a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under its supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to the Company by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report its conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and  5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on its most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.    Date: August 31, 2012 /s/ P. Brady Hayden P. Brady Hayden Acting Chief Financial and Accounting Officer   1 120503 SBMCC Form 10-K 2007
International Programs

The Department of the Treasury’s FY 2020 budget request for International Programs is included 

in the State, Foreign Operations, and Other Related Programs Appropriation.
#### HOGG v. STATE.

No. 21120.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 5, 1940.

W. A. Johnson and Robert P. Brown, both of San Angelo, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

GRAVES, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of car theft, and by the jury sentenced to serve two years in the State penitentiary.

The statement of facts herein was filed ninety-seven days after the overruling of the appellant’s motion for a new trial. Appellant’s attorneys furnish us with their affidavits, the burden of which seems to be that because the trial court ordered the court reporter to prepare and furnish the appellant a statement of facts upon his filing of an affidavit of inability to pay for same or provide security therefor, that it was incumbent upon the part of such reporter to see that same was actually placed in the hands of appellant’s attorneys. It is evident that such attorneys were wholly without diligence in this matter. It appears that the statement of facts was ordered by the court in the following order filed December 16, 1939: “The above and foregoing affidavit *341having been presented to me and heard and considered, it is hereby ordered that the court reporter for the Slst District Court prepare and furnish defendant a statement of facts on appeal in said cause.”

 It is shown' that such reporter had this statement prepared and ready for appellant within thirty days from the date of this order, but appellant’s attorneys made no effort to obtain the same and present it to the district attorney for agreement, nor to the district judge for approval, until the same was called to their attention by the district attorney. We are impressed with the fact that no diligence was shown in this matter. We do not think it to be the duty of the court reporter to actually see that all interested parties sign and agree and approve the statement of facts, but it is his duty to prepare and furnish such a statement only; and this statement being filed ninety-seven days after the notice of appeal was entered, that the same is filed too late for consideration.

There are no bills of exception in the record. The indictment appears to be regular, and we note that the court gave the only special charge submitted by the appellant.

No error being shown, the judgment is affirmed.
Case 4:22-cr-00194-O Document 61 Filed 08/10/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 213
Case 4:22-cr-00194-O Document 61 Filed 08/10/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 214
exv10w1



 






Exhibit 10.1




May 4, 2005




Mr. Steven J. Heyer

3565 Tuxedo Road NW

Atlanta, Georgia 30305



Dear Steve:




          Please refer to the Employment Agreement dated as of September 20, 2004 (“Employment
Agreement”) between the undersigned Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc. a Maryland
corporation (“Company”) and Steven J. Heyer (“Executive”).




          Company and Executive hereby agree as follows:




          1. Paragraph 3.2(a) of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended in its entirety to read:




          “Annual Incentive Plan. During the Term, Executive also shall be eligible to receive
cash incentive compensation (“Incentive Compensation” or “Bonus”) as follows: (i) the bonus
payable to Executive with respect to 2004 shall be a pro rata portion (based on the number of days
in 2004 after the Effective Date compared to 365) of $2,000,000, payable at such time and in such
manner as if earned under the AIP (as defined below), and (ii) for each calendar year subsequent to
2004 during the Term, Executive shall participate in the Annual Incentive Plan for Certain
Executives, or a successor or replacement plan (“AIP”) maintained by the Company for senior
executive officers at a level which is not less than the maximum participation level made available
to any Company senior executive excluding the Executive Chairman (determined without regard to
period of service or similar criteria that might otherwise be necessary to entitle Executive to
such level of participation); provided, however, that conditioned upon attainment of target
performance measure requirements based on one or more performance measures set forth in the AIP,
the target Bonus (“Target Bonus”) for each calendar year subsequent to 2004 during the Term for
which Executive shall be eligible shall be $2,000,000 (partial years pro rated).”




          2. Paragraph 3.2(b)(v) of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended by changing “thirty (30)
days” therein to “six (6) months”.




          3. This Amendment No. 1 is effective as of September 20, 2004 and applies to (and to the
extent necessary, amends) all awards of restricted stock units heretofore or hereafter granted to
pursuant to paragraph 3.2 of the Employment Agreement.




 









 








          Please signify your agreement to the foregoing by signing and returning an enclosed copy of
this letter.




	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	Yours very truly,
	 
	 	 	 	 
	

	 	By:
	 	/s/ Dave Norton
	

	 	 	 	 
	

	 	 	 	Name: Dave Norton
	

	 	 	 	Title: Executive Vice President Human
	

	 	 	 	     Resources






Agreed to:




	 	 	 	 	 
	By:

	 	/s/ Steven J. Heyer	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	

	 	Name: Steven J. Heyer
EXHIBIT 32.1


      CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT
                TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report of LeCroy Corporation (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Thomas H. Reslewic, 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 my
knowledge:

         (1)      The Form 10-Q 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and result of
                  operations of the Company.



Date: February 8, 2006
                                                  /s/ Thomas H. Reslewic
                                                  ---------------------------
                                                  Thomas H. Reslewic
                                                  Chief Executive Officer




A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.