alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 99.1


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact:           Joe Winn, Chief Financial
                                         Officer or Bruce Danziger, Director
                                         of Investor Relations
                                         (617) 375-7500


                        AMERICAN RADIO SYSTEMS ANNOUNCES
                      RADIO STATION EXCHANGE WITH ENTERCOM

Boston,  Massachusetts--July 21, 1997--American Radio Systems Corporation (NYSE:
AFM) announced  that it has entered into a series of agreements  whereby it will
convey  radio  stations  KUDL-FM  and  WDAF-AM  in Kansas  City and  KCTC-AM  in
Sacramento, along with $3,000,000 in cash, to Entertainment Communications, Inc.
(Entercom) in exchange for radio station  KLOU-FM in St. Louis.  Consummation of
the transaction is subject to regulatory approval.

Steve  Dodge,  American's  Chairman  & CEO,  stated,  "We  are  fortunate  to be
acquiring  a terrific  radio  station in KLOU-FM  which will help  solidify  our
position in St. Louis. At the same time, we are pleased to be able to maintain a
significant  presence in Kansas City with four  excellent  FM's. The downside to
this  deal is that  John  Gehron  won't be able to hear his  music on one of our
stations in Sacramento."

American Radio Systems  Corporation began trading shares publicly in June, 1995.
The Company owns and/or programs and markets approximately 100 radio stations in
Boston, Seattle, Cincinnati,  Baltimore,  Pittsburgh,  Portland, Sacramento, St.
Louis,  Charlotte,  Kansas  City,  Hartford,  Las Vegas,  Austin,  Buffalo,  San
Francisco/San Jose, West Palm Beach, Rochester, and Fresno. The Company also has
options and/or agreements to buy additional radio stations in Boston,  Portland,
San Francisco/San Jose, Pittsburgh, West Palm Beach, and Riverside.





                                       ##


               116 Huntington Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02116
                        (617) 375-7500 FAX (617) 375-7575
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 8 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 8

    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
    authorizing the Congress and the States to prohibit the act of 
   desecration of the flag of the United States and to set criminal 
                        penalties for that act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 7, 2009

  Mrs. Emerson (for herself and Mr. Bachus) introduced the following 
 joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
    authorizing the Congress and the States to prohibit the act of 
   desecration of the flag of the United States and to set criminal 
                        penalties for that act.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled   (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 
within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

                              ``Article--

    ``The Congress and the States shall have power to prohibit the act 
of desecration of the flag of the United States and to set criminal 
penalties for that act.''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 10(p)(3)



AMENDMENT THREE TO MARKETING AGREEMENT





THIS AMENDMENT TO THE MARKETING AGREEMENT, effective January 1, 2007, by and between American National Insurance Company (American National), an insurance company organized under the laws of the state of Texas, and Legacy Marketing Group (LMG), a California corporation.



WHEREAS, American National and LMG entered into a Marketing Agreement, dated November 15, 2002, as amended, (Agreement), wherein LMG agreed to provide specified services relating to the marketing of certain insurance policies issued by American National;



WHEREAS, American National and LMG agree it can be in their mutual interest for Wholesalers of LMG to sell American National products directly for American National and in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, the parties agree as follows:



1.

Appendix A to Amendment Two to Marketing Agreement,that contains the list of * and * Wholesalers (LMG Wholesalers) is hereby revised in its entirely and the attached Appendix A is replaced in its stead.  Appendix A will be updated when mutually agreed to American National and LMG.



2.

Appendix B to Amendment Two to Marketing Agreement, that details the LMG Bonus Schedule, shall exclude the following types of American National annuity products when calculating the bonus:



a)

Single Premium Immediate Annuity (SPIA) {However, single or flexible premium deferred annuities are not excluded from the bonus calculation.}

b)

Multi Year Guarantee Annuity

c)

Sales involving the administration or funding of Pension Plans for the small business market (plans offered to employer groups: are 401(k) Plans, Defined Benefit Plans, including 412(i) Plans, and Comparability Profit Sharing Plans) sold through American National.  This does not include individual sales where the owner of an individual annuity may be a pension plan and American National is not involved in the administration of such Pension Plan.



3.

Notwithstanding the fact that the types of products described above in Section 2 are excluded for purposes of calculating the bonus, the sales associated with implementing 412(i) products above in Section 2 are specifically included if they are from the production of LMGs NMD downline hierarchy and



*Confidential information omitted and filed separately with the SEC.



Page 1 of 2





---

specifically included for purposes of calculating the bonus set forth in Appendix B of Amendment Two.



Except as specifically amended hereby, all terms and provisions of the Marketing Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.



IN WITNESS HEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Third Amendment to Marketing Agreement.





Legacy Marketing Group

American National Insurance Company



By: /s/ R. Preston Pitts

By: /s/ David Behrens



Printed Name: R. Preston Pitts, President

Printed Name: David Behrens



Title: President

Title: Executive Vice President, Independent Marketing Group



Date: February 1, 2007

Date: February 1, 2007







*Confidential information omitted and filed separately with the SEC.



Page 2 of 2
Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 Toggle navigation
            
            Joint Forces Staff College
                Joint Forces Staff College
        Search
                    Search Joint Forces Staff College:
                        Search
                Search Joint Forces Staff College:
                    Search
    Home

    Coronavirus

    About 
        Overview

    College Leadership

    College Chaplain

    Contact Information

    Denton Learning Center

    Employment

    History

    Institutional Research

    JFSC Faculty

    Women, Peace, and Security (WPS)

    Academics
    
        Accreditation

    Joint Advanced Warfighting School (JAWS)
        
        Program Description

    Prerequisites

    Reporting Instructions

    Schedule

    Joint and Combined Warfighting School (JCWS)
        
        Program Description

    Prerequisites

    Reporting Instructions

    Schedule

    JCWS Hybrid (JCWS-H)

    JCWS Satellite (JCWS-S)

    Joint Information School (JIS)
        
        C4I Division

    Information Division

    Joint Transition Course (JTC)

    International Fellows
        
        Incoming Fellows

    Programs

    Alumni

    Contact Us

    Senior Fellows Program

    Libraries

    Faculty Resources

    Students
    
        All Course Schedules

    Incoming Students

    NDU Academic Policies

    Security Manager/SSO

    Uniform Policy

    Registrar

    Media
    
        Campaigning Journals
        
        About Us

    Issues & Articles

    Submissions

    Masthead

    News

    Commentary  Leadership Major General Thomas D. Crimmins, USAF ANG
    
   Major General Thomas D. Crimmins, USAF ANG
   CommandantView BioCAPT IngargiolaCAPT**Frank T. Ingargiola**
   Dean of AdministrationView Bio
   
   Dr. Charles DavisDr. Charles Davis
   Dean of Faculty and Academic ProgramsView Bio
 DoD Link Disclaimer
   DoD Annual Performance Plans
   NDU FOIA RequestsDoD Privacy Policy
   DoD Plain Writing
   NDU System of Records NoticeDoD Open Government
   DoD Information Quality
   NDU Privacy PolicyDoD Privacy Program
   DoD Section 508
   NDU Privacy ProgramDoD No FEAR Act
   USA.gov
   NDU.edu Site Map
                    Joint Forces Staff College
   7800 Hampton Blvd.
   Norfolk, VA 23511-1702

   Contact JFSC

   Report JFSC Website Issues
   or Suggestion for Improvement

   SAPR Resources
            

Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Terry Spittler, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed and new trial granted on count one of the indictment, in accordance with the following memorandum: The indictment charges defendant with one count of assault in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.05 [2]) and one count of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree (Penal Law § 265.01 [1]). It is alleged that defendant twice struck the victim with a "billy”. At trial, the jury rejected the defense theory that defendant’s conduct was justified, and found him guilty of both charges.

Initially, we find that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the People *(see, People v Ford,*66 NY2d 428, 437) is legally sufficient to support both convictions. Defendant’s assault conviction must be reversed, however, because the trial court’s charge on justification *(see,*Penal Law § 35.15) failed properly to instruct the jurors "to consider both subjective and objective factors in determining whether [the] defendant’s conduct was reasonable” *(People v Wesley,*76 NY2d 555, 559; *see, People v Goetz,*68 NY2d 96, 114-115). Specifically, the jurors were not instructed that they should assess the reasonableness of defendant’s beliefs "by judging the situation from the point of view of defendant as though they were actually in his place” *(People v Wesley, supra,*at 560).

*920Defendant also contended that his conduct in striking the victim was justified under Penal Law § 35.20 (1); §§ 35.25 and 35.30 (4). Reviewing the record in the light most favorable to defendant *(see, People v Watts,*57 NY2d 299, 301), we find that the court erred in refusing defendant’s requests that the jury be instructed regarding the provisions of those statutes.

Neither the error in the court’s charge under Penal Law § 35.15 nor the errors in refusing to charge on the subject of justification under the other cited Penal Law sections may be viewed as harmless *(see, People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230, 240-241; *see also, People v Padgett,*60 NY2d 142, 144-145).

There are no circumstances, however, under which the justifiable use of force can be a defense to the crime of criminal possession of a weapon *(see, People v Pons,*68 NY2d 264, 267). Thus the court’s errors bear no relationship to defendant’s conviction for that crime, and the conviction is, therefore, affirmed.

Defendant’s other claims of error concerning the court’s charge to the jury on the assault count are unpreserved for review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]). We have reviewed the other issues raised by defendant on appeal and find them to be without merit.

Accordingly, the judgment must be modified by reversing defendant’s conviction for assault in the second degree, vacating the sentence imposed thereon, and granting a new trial on that count of the indictment. (Appeal from judgment of Ontario County Court, Henry, Jr., J.—assault, second degree.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Green, Pine and Davis, JJ.
#### In the Matter of Larry Campbell, Appellant, v Charles J. Scully, as Superintendent of Green Haven Correctional Facility, et al., Respondents.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, *inter alia,*to compel the respondents to cease certain alleged improper practices at the Green Haven Correctional Facility, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Ritter, J.), entered September 25, 1987, which dismissed the proceeding without prejudice to the service of an amended petition setting forth the specific grievances of the petitioner which have been finally determined by the appropriate administrative officials.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the petitioner’s assigned counsel that there are no meritorious issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631; *cf., People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606). Lawrence, J. P., Hooper, Sullivan and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
#### TEXAS STATE LIFE INS. CO. v. FRESS.

No. 10941.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Galveston.

Feb. 29, 1940.

Rehearing Denied March 21, 1940.

O. M. Street, of Dallas, for plaintiff in error.

A. B. Wilson and Allan H. Kottwitz, both of Houston, for defendant in error.

CODY, Justice.

Defendant in error, wife of the deceased, recovered judgment below as the beneficiary of a policy of accident insurance which had been issued to deceased by plaintiff in error. The defense was that the deceased, who was killed by the discharge of a pistol, had committed suicide.

“When death occurs from other than natural causes and the evidence leaves the nature of the cause in doubt, the presumption is that it was accidental rather than self-inflicted.” 24 Tex.Jur., page 1263, and cases there cited. Plaintiff in error seems to entertain the erroneous belief that the burden was on the insured to disprove the insurer’s pled defense that the death was suicide. Id. We have carefully examined the evidence and have found it amply sufficient to sustain the jury’s findings: (1) That the death of the deceased was effected solely by external, violent and accidental means; (2) that the death did not result from injuries 'intentionally self-inflicted. We do not see how any useful purpose would be served by reviewing the evidence.

It was not error for the court to sustain defendant in error’s objection to the proffered evidence that Mrs. Panos, a daughter of the deceased, made a statement at the Plospital to Dr. Harris, sometime following the shooting which had occurred at the home of the deceased, to the effect that the death was suicide. Mrs. Panos was not a beneficiary; she was not even at the home of deceased when the shooting occurred. We can think of no exception to the hearsay rule under which such evidence would be admissible. Plaintiff in error makes no contention that the statement is res gestae; and it is obviously a conclusion which Mrs. Panos herself would not be permitted to testify to over objection. Indeed, the statement is *199a conclusion which was the very issue to be determined by the jury.

The judgment should be affirmed, and it is so ordered.

Affirmed.
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 12

- 00524

- CR

Kenneth Nash Neu

v.

The State of Texas §

§

§

§

§ From t he 371st District Court

o f Tarrant County ( 0491203D )

December 6 , 2012

P er C uriam

(nfp)



### JUDGMENT

This cour t has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

the appeal should be dismissed. It is ordere d that the appeal is dismissed for

wan t of jurisdiction

.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

PER CURIAM2 

## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 12

- 00524

- CR

KENNETH NASH NEU APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

----------

FROM THE 371ST DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

----------



### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1

----------

In 1993, Ap pellant Kenneth Nash Neu pleaded guilty to indecency with a

child, and the trial court sentenced him to thirty

- five years’ incarceration. 2 He

filed a notice of appeal in the trial court in October 2012, and the notice refers to

pending motions Appellant h ad filed in the trial court.

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

2 Appellant also pleaded true to enhancement an d habitual of fender

allegations.3

On November 6 , 201 2 , we notified Appellant of our concern that we lacked

jurisdiction over this appeal because the trial court has not entered any

appealable orders

, and we informed Appellant that we would dismiss the appeal

fo r want of jurisdiction unless he or any party desiring to continue the appeal filed

a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal. Although Appellant filed

a response, it does not raise grounds for continuing this attempted direct appeal. 3

Because we generally have jurisdiction to consider an appeal in a criminal

case only when there has been a judgment of conviction, and because the trial

court has not entered an appealable order, we dismiss the appeal for want of

jurisdiction. See McKown v. State , 915 S.W.2d 160, 161 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth

1996, no pet. ).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: GARDNER, WALKER, and MCCOY, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App

. P. 47.2(b )

DELIVERED: December 6 , 2012

3 To the extent that Appellant seeks to appeal the trial court’s alleged

refusal to rule on the pending motions, he c annot do so via direct appeal.
Air Quality Program Sacaton, 

### AZ. 85247

We would like to request placement on theagenda for the upcoming Community meeting on 

## 5-236 

# . The air quality program will make a presentation on the following

The presentation will 

### be given 

### by 

# ?& bbJ;d( R
Please call Janet Travis at(520) 562-2234 ext. 286 to confirm placement on theagenda. 

### Thank-youTRANSMISSION VERIFICATION REPORT TIME : 05/09/2005 09:11 NAME : DEPT DEQ FAX : 5205622245 TEL : 5205622234
DATE,TIME FAX NO. /NAME DURATION PAGECS) RESULT MODE -- OK STANDARD ECM



### To; District 

# 6 We would 

### liketo request placement on 

### the agenda 

### for the upcoming Community meeting on 

### 5-236 

## - The air 

### quality programwill make a presentation on the

### following 

# p4-UQ5-t @v 

# c.ow\& 

# GfP-A)y~pk- 

## -b

## re d pot(u+.07bv\ 

# ,mi+ii2 kw.W*: 

# %.

The presentation will 

### be given by 

# %!d 

# *id<
In-Person Attendees: Test Procedure - Conventional Cooking Products with Induction Heating Technology Meeting

Meeting Date: Monday, March 4, 2013

Name Title Organization Street City State Zip Phone Fax 

Battaglia, James Consultant Navigant Consulting, Inc. 77 S. Bedford Street

Suite 400

Burlington MA 01803-5154 781-270-8321 781-270-0418 james.battag

Brookman, Douglas Facilitator Public Solutions, Inc. 108 Newburg Avenue Baltimore MD 21228 410-719-0580 410-719-0581 publicsolution

Cleary, Jennifer Director, Regulatory 

Affairs

Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM)

1111 19th Street, NW,Suite 402

Washington DC 20036 202-872-5955 

x314

202-872-9354 jcleary@aham

Edwards, Brenda J. Program Support 

Specialist

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) 1000 Independence 

Avenue, SW

Washington DC 20585 202-596-2945 202-586-4617 brenda.edwa

Leybourn, Stephen B. Regulatory/Product 

Engineer

Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM)

1111 19th Street NW, Suite 402

Washington DC 20036 202-872-5955 

x 331

202-872-9354 sleybourn@a

Mauer, Joanna Technical Advocacy 

Coordinator

Appliance Standards Awareness Project (ASAP)

529 14th Street NW,Suite 600

Washington DC 20045 202-507-4034 N/A jmauer@app

Reich, Judith Project Employee / 

Consultant

Navigant Consulting, Inc. 77 S. Bedford Street

Suite 400

Burlington MA 01803 781-270-0101 781-270-0418 jreich@navig

Watson, Troy Consultant Navigant Consulting, Inc. 1801 K Street, Suite 500 Washington DC 20006-1301 202-481-8427 202-973-2401 troy.watson@
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of SITEL Corporation (the“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,James F. Lynch, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002, that to my knowledge:

 

(1)          The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)          The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/  James F. Lynch |   |
|--------------------------|--------|
| James F. Lynch           |
| Chief Executive Officer  |
|                     |
| August 14, 2003     |

 

----