alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Amtsblatt C 271A/18.

| | ISSN 1977-088X |
| --- | --- |
| Amtsblatt
  der Europäischen Union | C 271A |
| | |
| Ausgabe in deutscher Sprache | Mitteilungen und Bekanntmachungen | 58. Jahrgang18. August 2015 |

ISSN 1977-088X

Amtsblatt

der Europäischen Union

C 271A

Ausgabe in deutscher Sprache

Mitteilungen und Bekanntmachungen

58. Jahrgang18. August 2015

---

| Informationsnummer | Inhalt | Seite |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | Berichtigungen |
| 2015/C 271A/01 | Berichtigung der Bekanntmachung der allgemeinen Auswahlverfahren — Konferenzdolmetscher (m/w) (AD 5/AD 7) — EPSO/AD/311/15 — für die tschechische Sprache (CS) — EPSO/AD/312/15 — für die kroatische Sprache (HR) — EPSO/AD/313/15 — für die litauische Sprache (LT) — EPSO/AD/314/15 — für die maltesische Sprache (MT) ( ABl. C 224 A vom 9.7.2015 ) | 1 |

Informationsnummer

Inhalt

Seite

Berichtigungen

2015/C 271A/01

Berichtigung der Bekanntmachung der allgemeinen Auswahlverfahren — Konferenzdolmetscher (m/w) (AD 5/AD 7) — EPSO/AD/311/15 — für die tschechische Sprache (CS) — EPSO/AD/312/15 — für die kroatische Sprache (HR) — EPSO/AD/313/15 — für die litauische Sprache (LT) — EPSO/AD/314/15 — für die maltesische Sprache (MT) ( ABl. C 224 A vom 9.7.2015 )

( ABl. C 224 A vom 9.7.2015 )

1

---

| DE | |
| --- | --- |

DE

---

Berichtigungen

| 18.8.2015 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | CA 271/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.8.2015

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

CA 271/1

---

Berichtigung der Bekanntmachung der allgemeinen Auswahlverfahren

Konferenzdolmetscher (m/w) (AD 5/AD 7)

EPSO/AD/311/15 — für die tschechische Sprache (CS)

EPSO/AD/312/15 — für die kroatische Sprache (HR)

EPSO/AD/313/15 — für die litauische Sprache (LT)

EPSO/AD/314/15 — für die maltesische Sprache (MT)

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union C 224 A vom 9. Juli 2015
  )

(2015/C 271 A/01)

Auf Seite 1:

anstelle von:

„
  Bewerbungsschluss: 11. August 2015 um 12.00 Uhr mittags (Brüsseler Zeit)
  “.

muss es heißen:

muss es heißen:

„
  Bewerbungsschluss: 18. August 2015 um 12.00 Uhr mittags (Brüsseler Zeit)
  “.

Auf Seite 5:

anstelle von:

anstelle von:

„WANN UND WO KANN ICH MEINE BEWERBUNG EINREICHEN?

Die Bewerbung erfolgt online über die EPSO-Website http://jobs.eu-careers.eu bis zum:

11. August 2015 um 12.00 Uhr mittags (Brüsseler Zeit)
  .“

muss es heißen:

muss es heißen:

„WANN UND WO KANN ICH MEINE BEWERBUNG EINREICHEN?

Die Bewerbung erfolgt online über die EPSO-Website http://jobs.eu-careers.eu bis zum:

18. August 2015 um 12.00 Uhr mittags (Brüsseler Zeit)
  .“

---
**Exhibit 31.2**
**Certification Pursuant to Section 13a-14(a) of the Rules and Regulations underthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934**
I, Thomas D. Davis, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report of Xybernaut Corporation; 2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain anyuntrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect tothe period covered by this quarterly report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this quarterly report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations andcash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented inthis quarterly report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:
(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;
(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and
(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely 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 otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.
November 8, 2004
XYBERNAUT CORPORATION         /s/ THOMAS D.DAVIS  Thomas D. Davis   Senior Vice President and
#### JETERS v. STATE.

No. 17060.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 19, 1934.

Jno. M. Hatter, of Waxahachie, for appellant.

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

BATTIMOEE, Judge.

Conviction for theft of automobile; punishment, five years in the penitentiary.

There are a great many bills of exception, most of them complaining of argument of the county attorney. Many of these arguments appear to be subject to exception, but we only call special attention to the argument complained of in bills of exception 17,18, 19, and 20. Without setting out the argument in bill 17, which is recited in the bill, the statement is made of same as follows: “This argument was out of the record of testimony, and prejudicial and inflammatory.” The bill of exceptions containing the above recital is approved without any qualification by the learned trial judge. Bill of exceptions 18 sets out at length certain other argument, and it is recited in the bill that this argument was a comment on the appellant’s failure to testify. This bill of exceptions is approved by the trial judge without any qualification. Bill of exceptions 19 sets out at length other argument of the county attorney. This hill states that the argument was prejudicial, a comment on the failure of defendant to testify, and not in response to any argument of. appellant’s attorney. This bill is approved without any qualification. Bill of exceptions 20 sets out a statement as follows: “This young man we are trying is no angel, and this record further shows that he is a member of a well greased and well oiled theft gang in the State of Texas ; that he has been operating from, one place to another in the illegal possession of automobiles.” This bill sets out that this argument was without support of testimony and not in response to any argument of defendant’s attorney and that defendant did not take the witness stand, and same was prejudicial. This bill is approved without qualification. We need not refer to any of the other bills of exception. Whenever trial courts in this state certify that arguments were made by state’s counsel which are without support in testimony and which are prejudicial and inflammatory, there seems nothing .left for this court to do but reverse the ease. See Cooper v. State, 113 Tex. Cr. R. 569, 24 S.W. (2d) 427; McKee v. State, 116 Tex. Cr. R. 232, *23234 S.W.(2d) 592; Griffin v. State, 121 Tex. Cr. R. 171, 50 S.W.(2d) 812.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                  EXHIBIT 10.26A



                                    AGREEMENT


         On this ___ day of July, 1997, Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc.
(hereinafter the "Company") and R. Lee Haney (hereinafter the "Executive") enter
into this Agreement effective July 1, 1997.

         WHEREAS, the Executive and the Company are parties to a letter
agreement dated September 2, 1994 and a letter agreement dated September 29,
1994 (individually and collectively the "Letter Agreement(s)"); and

         WHEREAS, paragraph "4" of the September 29, 1994 Letter Agreement was
intended to amend the Officers' Supplemental Retirement Plan of Orange and
Rockland Utilities, Inc. (the "Plan") to provide for the inclusion of incentive
compensation in the calculation of Executive's benefit under the Plan on an
accelerated incremental basis commensurate with years of service with the
Company; and

         WHEREAS, the Plan has recently been amended to reflect that the
definition of "Compensation" under the Plan shall include all incentive
compensation that an Officer was/is eligible to earn under the Company's Annual
Team Incentive Plan at target, effective January 1, 1995; and

         WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive wish to amend the Letter
Agreements so as to reflect these recent changes to the Plan.

         NOW, THEREFORE, the Company and the Executive agree as follows:

         1. Effective January 1, 1995, the benefit to which Executive may be
entitled under the Plan, as determined under the terms and conditions of the
Plan, shall be calculated to include 100% of the Annual Team Incentive Plan
award that Executive is eligible to earn at target in an applicable year, in
accordance with the definition of "Compensation" under Section 2(9)(B) of the
Plan, as amended and restated on June 5, 1997 and effective July 1, 1997.
Paragraph "4" of the September 29, 1994 Letter Agreement is hereby superseded by
this paragraph.
<PAGE>   2
         2. Nothing in this Agreement is intended, nor shall this Agreement be
construed, to in any way amend or limit the accelerated vesting provisions in
the Letter Agreements.

         3. To the extent the terms of the Letter Agreements conflict with the
terms of this Agreement, the terms of this Agreement shall govern.



     ----------------------------             ----------------------------
             R. Lee Haney                        James F. O'Grady, Jr.
                                                 Chairman, Compensation
                                                       Committee
#### CHAPMAN et al. v. CRICHET.

No. 6668.

Supreme Court of Texas.

July 15, 1936.

Harrison, Scott & Rasberry, McKenzie, Walthall & Gamble, and Jones, Goldstein, Iiardie & Grambling, all of El Paso, for plaintiffs in error.

Fred C. Knollenberg and W. H. Winter, both of El Paso, for defendant in error.

SMEDLEY, Commissioner.

Defendant in error in his motion for rehearing directs attention to an error in the opinion where the date of the deed from Crichet to McMahon is erroneously given as November 1, 1927, instead of January 2, 1929, the correct date. This error has been corrected in the original opinion.

The motion for rehearing has been carefully considered and is overruled.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>              5
<MULTIPLIER>           1000
       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-28-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-28-1996
<CASH>                                            7,034
<SECURITIES>                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    18,706
<ALLOWANCES>                                        567
<INVENTORY>                                      57,815
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 98,960
<PP&E>                                           81,196
<DEPRECIATION>                                    3,268
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  206,287
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            91,208
<BONDS>                                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             5,500
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<COMMON>                                              1
<OTHER-SE>                                       32,158
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    206,287
<SALES>                                          40,251
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 40,251
<CGS>                                            43,427
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    48,953
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                5,148
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (13,522)
<INCOME-TAX>                                          3
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (13,525)
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (13,618)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (18.31)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (18.31)
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 248 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 248

     To block implementation of the Executive order that restricts 
  individuals from certain countries from entering the United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 30, 2017

Mr. Murphy (for himself, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Merkley, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. 
 Coons, Mr. Schatz, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Van Hollen, Mr. Booker, and Mrs. 
    Murray) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To block implementation of the Executive order that restricts 
  individuals from certain countries from entering the United States.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

    Congress finds the following:
            (1) The Executive order titled ``Protecting the Nation From 
        Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States'' violates the 
        Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.) which 
        states that no person can be discriminated against in the 
        issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person's race, 
        sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.
            (2) That Executive order violates the Establishment Clause 
        of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and 
        the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause of the 
        Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION AGAINST USE OF FUNDS.

    No funds, resources, or fees made available to the Secretary of 
Homeland Security, or to any other official of a Federal agency, by 
this Act or any other Act for any fiscal year, may be used to implement 
or enforce the Executive order titled ``Protecting the Nation From 
Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States'' signed on January 27, 
2017.
                                 <all>
```
#### DE LANE v. STATE.

No. 20436.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 14. 1939.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 11, 1939.

J. T. Kelley, of Odessa, for appellant.

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

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

The offense is theft; the punishment, confinement in the penitentiary for two years.

The transcript is before us without a judgment of conviction or a sentence. Under the circumstances, this court is without jurisdiction.

The appeal is dismissed.

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.
Background Informational Sites

Bormatec Maja Used by Conservation Drones

http://conservationdrones.org/

Mission Planner Navigation Software for Autopilot

http://planner.ardupilot.com/wiki/table-of-contents/
#### RATLEY v. STATE.

No. 18365.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 3, 1936.

Kenyon & Gernsbacher, of Galveston, for appellant.

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

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

The offense is theft of property over the value of $50; the punishment, confinement in the penitentiary for two years.

No jttdgment of conviction is brought forward. Under the circumstances, this court is without jurisdiction.

The appeal is dismissed.

*112PER 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.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d byN i nth C i r c ui tR ul e 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. T OD D D . GA S T AL DO , D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 10- 35385 D. C . No . 3 : 0 9 - c v - 0 0 3 1 0 - HU ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

O r e gon A nnaJ . B r ow n, D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d S e pt e m be r27, 2011 ** B efo re: S IL V E R M A N , W . F L E T C H E R , an dM U R G U IA , C i rcu i tJu d g es. T odd D . G a s t a l do appe a l s pr o s e f r om the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s s um m a ryj udgm e nt f orthe U ni t e d S t a t e s i n i t s c i vi l a c t i on t o c ol l e c ta m ount s due on thr e e de f aul t e d, f e d e r a lly - in s u r e ds tu d e n t lo a n s . W e h a v e ju r is d ic tio n u n d e r2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . W e 

# FI LED OC T 12 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS10- 35385 2 r e v ie w d e n o v o . U

ni te d State s v . P hi l l i

ps , 20 F . 3d 1005, 1006- 07 ( 9th C i r . 1994) ( p e rc u r i a m) . W e a f

f i rm. T he di stri ctcourtprop er l y grant ed sum m ary j ud gm entfor the U ni t ed S t at es b e c au s e G a s ta ld o f

a ile dto d e m o n s tr a te ag e n u in e d is p u te o f m a te r ia l f

a c t a s to w h e th e rh e o w e dth e a lle g e da m o u n ts to th e g o v e rn m e n t. See C elotexC orp. v. Ca tr e tt , 4 7 7 U .S . 3 1 7 , 3 2 4 ( 1 9 8 6 ) ; see a l so 20 U . S . C . § 1 09 1a(a )( 2) (the U ni t ed St a t e s ma ya ta n yt i me b r i n g a n a c t i o n f o rth e r e p a y me n to f

th e a mo u n td u e f

r o m a bo rr ow eron a l oan m ade und erT i t l e I V of the H i gh erE du ca t i on A ctthathas bee n a s s ig n e dto th e S e c r e ta ryo f E d u c a tio n ) . G a s ta ld o ’s r e m a in in g c o n te n tio n s a r e u n p e r s u a s iv e . AF F I RME D.
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 178 (Friday, September 13, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 74937]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-20833]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2628-066]


Alabama Power Company; Notice of Revised Procedural Schedule for 
Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Project Relicense

    On November 23, 2021, as supplemented,\1\ the Alabama Power Company 
filed an application for a new major license for the 135-megawatt R.L. 
Harris Hydroelectric Project No. 2628 (Harris Project or project). On 
March 31, 2023, Commission staff issued a notice of intent to prepare 
an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to evaluate the effects of 
relicensing the Harris Project. The notice included an anticipated 
schedule for issuing the draft and final EIS. On April 18, 2024, staff 
issued a notice of revised procedural schedule for preparing a draft 
and final EIS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The final license application filed November 23, 2021, was 
supplemented on March 23, 2022, June 15, 2022, and December 27, 
2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By this notice, Commission staff is updating the procedural 
schedule for completing the draft EIS. The revised schedule is shown 
below. Further revisions to the schedule may be made as appropriate.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Milestone                           Target date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue draft EIS...........................  November 2024.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any questions regarding this notice may be directed to Sarah 
Salazar at (202) 502-6863 or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4e3d2f3c2f26603d2f222f342f3c0e282b3c2d60292138"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7c0f1d0e1d14520f1d101d061d0e3c1a190e1f521b130a">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: September 9, 2024.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2024-20833 Filed 9-12-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### TEXAS FARM PRODUCTS CO. v. THOMPSON et al.

No. 3501.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Beaumont.

April 13, 1939.

Rehearing Denied April 26, 1939.

*493Adams & McAlister, of Nacogdoches, for appellant.

Gerald C. Mann, Atty. Gen., and Geo. W. Barcus, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

COMBS, Justice.

This is an appeal from a judgment dissolving a temporary injunction. The judgment appealed from was entered November 4, 1938. The transcript was not presented to the clerk of this court for filing until November 26, 1938, more than twenty days after entry of the judgment appealed from. The transcript was filed too late to confer jurisdiction on this court. Vernon’s Ann. Civ.St. Art. 4662; Dodson v. Ingram, Tex.Civ.App., 270 S.W. 575; Reeves v. Railroad Commission of Texas, Tex.Civ.App., 75 S.W.2d 155; Harrell v. Tilley, Tex.Civ.App., 111 S.W.2d 736.

Appeal dismissed.