alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Provision to the Company's obligaton for severance--Tanios Viviani



 EXHIBIT 10.4 
  
 Provision relating to the Company’s obligation to pay severance to Tanios Viviani, 
 Vice President, Fresh Cut Fruit, from offer letter to him, which became effective 
 September 28, 2004, upon its approval by the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors 
  
 Severance: Should your employment be involuntarily terminated by the Company for reasons other than “cause” (as defined in the Company’s Stock
Option and Incentive Plan) after the first anniversary of your date of hire, you would be entitled to severance pay equal to one year’s base salary. In addition, the Company will pay the monthly premium cost of COBRA continuation of your health
care coverage for a period of one year following your termination, subject to your eligibility for COBRA continuation. (COBRA eligibility ends when you become covered by another plan). No severance or COBRA premiums would be paid in the event of
termination for “cause.”
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          16,126
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   21,060
<ALLOWANCES>                                       136
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                41,825
<PP&E>                                           5,842
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,773
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  55,997
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,241
<BONDS>                                          1,820
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        32,943
<OTHER-SE>                                      11,450
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    55,997
<SALES>                                            491
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                48,091
<CGS>                                              454
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   41,921
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    51
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    75
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 151
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,468
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,655
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,813
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,813
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.40
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.39
        

</TABLE>
# C_2023282EN.01000101.xml

| 11.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 282/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/1

---

Initiation of proceedings

(Case M.11033 – ADOBE / FIGMA)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2023/C 282/01)

On 7 August 2023, the Commission decided to initiate proceedings in the above-mentioned case after finding that the notified concentration raises serious doubts as to its compatibility with the internal market. The initiation of proceedings opens a second phase investigation with regard to the notified concentration, and is without prejudice to the final decision on the case. The decision is based on Article 6(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1).

The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their observations on the proposed concentration to the Commission.

In order to be fully taken into account in the procedure, observations should reach the Commission not later than 15 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference M.11033 – ADOBE / FIGMA, to the following address:

| European Commission |
| --- |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

---
# Official Journal C 202/2009

| | ISSN 1725-2423
  doi:10.3000/17252423.C_2009.202.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 202 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5227 August 2009 |

ISSN 1725-2423

doi:10.3000/17252423.C_2009.202.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 202

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5227 August 2009

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES |
| | Commission |
| 2009/C 202/01 | Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (1) | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES

Commission

2009/C 202/01

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (1)

1

---

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES |
| | Commission |
| 2009/C 202/02 | Euro exchange rates | 3 |
| | NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES |
| 2009/C 202/03 | Information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1857/2006 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises active in the production of agricultural products and amending Regulation (EC) No 70/2001 | 4 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES

Commission

2009/C 202/02

Euro exchange rates

3

NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES

2009/C 202/03

Information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1857/2006 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises active in the production of agricultural products and amending Regulation (EC) No 70/2001

4

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

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

EN
700 A.2d 262

#### ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND v. John R. GOBER.

Misc. AG No. 48,

Sept. Term, 1997.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

Sept. 17, 1997.

ORDER

This matter came before the Court on the joint petition of the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland and Respondent to place Respondent on indefinite suspension.

It is this 17th Day of September, 1997'

*251ORDERED, that Respondent, John R. Gober, for the misconduct set forth in the joint petition be and he is hereby indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in the State of Maryland said suspension to run concurrently with the indefinite suspension previously ordered by this Court in its Order of October 28,1992.
# C_2022151EN.01000201.xml

| 6.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 151/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 151/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10639 – MAX MARA / MITSUI / MCJ)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 151/02)

On 18 March 2022, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32022M10639. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32022M10639. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
### NUMBER 13 - 20 - 00 528 - C V COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI
– EDINBURG

IN R E LILLIAN SMITH
On Petition for Writ o f Injunction
.
MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Hinojosa a nd Perkes Memorandum Opinion by Justice Hinojosa 1 The Gonzales County probate court granted an application for the sale of real estate filed by Craig Hopper, guardian of the estate of Margaret Landgrebe , an incapacitated person

. Lillian Smith 2 appealed that order in our appellate cause number 13

- 20

- 00476

- CV and filed a petition in th e foregoing cause number seeking to enjoin

1 See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 52.8(d) ( “ When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do so ,” but “[w]hen granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case” ); id. R. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).

2 See id. R. 52. 1 ( providing that an original appellate proceeding seeking extraordinary relief should be captioned in the name of the relator); id . R. 52.2 ( designating the party seeking relief in an original proceeding as the relator)

.2 Hopper, as guardian of the Estate of Margaret Virginia Landgrebe, from selling the real estate at issue “ in order to pre serve the subject matter of the underlying appeal and prevent it from becoming moot.” We d ismiss the petition for writ of injunction as moot

. T he purpose of a writ of injunction is to enforce or protect the appellate court’s jurisdiction. Holloway v. Fifth Court of Appeals , 767 S.W.2d 680, 683 (Tex. 1989) (orig. proceeding); In re Murphy , 484 S.W.3d 655, 656 (Tex. App.

— Tyler 2016, orig. pr oceeding) (per curiam); In re Olson , 252 S.W.3d 747, 747 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re Sheshtawy , 161 S.W.3d 1, 1 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, orig. proceeding) (per curiam). The writ of injunction is issued by a superior court to control, limit, or prevent action in a court of inferior jurisdiction. In re Olson , 252 S.W.3d at 747; In re State , 180 S.W.3d 423, 425 (Tex. App.

— Tyler 2005, orig. proceeding). The use of a writ of injunction is limited to ca ses in which the appellate court has actual jurisdiction over a pending proceeding. In re Murphy , 484 S.W.3d at 656; In re Olson , 252 S.W.3d at 747. A writ of injunction is preventative in nature. Campbell v. Wilder , 487 S.W.3d 146, 153

– 54 (Tex. 2016). By separate opinion issued this same date in cause number 13

- 20

- 00476

- CV, we have dismissed Smith’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See Guardianship of Margaret Virginia Landgrebe , No. 13

- 20

- 00476

- CV, 2020 WL _____, at *__ (Tex. App.

— Corpus Christi

– Edinburg Dec. __, 2020, no pet. h.) (mem. op.). Accordingly, we dismiss this petition for writ of injunction as moot. LETICIA HINOJOSA Justice D elivered and filed the 10 th day of December, 2020

.
Exhibit 3.02



SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY



Amendment of Bylaws



(As approved by the Board of Directors as of August 4, 2003)





Section 2 of Article VII of the Bylaws is added as follows:



SECTION 2.

The Company may have, from time to time, Non-Officer Vice Presidents.  The Non-Officer Vice Presidents shall have such powers and perform such duties as may be prescribed for them from time to time by the President, any Vice President or the Board of Directors.  Non-Officer Vice Presidents shall not be formally elected by the Board of Directors and shall not be considered officers of the Company for purposes of Section 16 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or for purposes of California law.  Such Non-Officer Vice Presidents shall not be deemed a Vice President as such term is described in the foregoing Section 1 of Article VII.
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 12

                       COLONIAL REALTY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
                       RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES

         CRLP's ratio of earnings to fixed charges for the three months ended
June 30, 2003 and 2002, was 1.73 and 1.86, respectively. CRLP's ratio of
earnings to fixed charges for the six months ended June 30, 2003 and 2002, was
1.73 and 1.79, respectively.

         The ratios of earnings to fixed charges were computed by dividing
earnings by fixed charges. For this purpose, earnings consist of pre-tax income
from continuing operations before income, loss from equity investees,
extraordinary gain or loss, gains on sales of properties, distributed income of
equity investees, excluding interest costs capitalized plus fixed charges. Fixed
charges consist of interest expense (including interest costs capitalized) and
amortization of debt issuance costs.
SCWC

- 2 0

- 0000 142

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI ʻ I

________________________________________________________________

MICHAEL OLEKSA and ERICA OLEKSA

, Petitioner s/Plaintiffs

- Appellant s ,

vs.

DONALD C. CHAIKIN and JERRY SULLIVAN,

Respondent s/Defendants

- Appel l ees

.

________________________________________________________________

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

( CAAP

- 20

- 0000142 ; C IV. N O

. 2CC161000628 )

ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., McKenna, and Eddins, JJ., and

Circuit Judge s Ashford and Kubota

, assigned by reason of vacancies )

Petitioners/ Plaintiffs

- Appellants Michael and Erica

Oleksa’s Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed on September

13 , 2023, is hereby rejected.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai ʻ i, November 8 , 2023.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Todd W. Eddins

/s/ James H. Ashford

/s/ Peter K. Kubota Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCWC-20-0000142

08-NOV-2023

07:55 AM

Dkt. 13 ODAC
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 21, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-40429

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSE GUADALUPE SANTOS-HERNANDEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:03-CR-892-ALL

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

Before JOLLY, JONES, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Jose Guadalupe

Santos-Hernandez concedes that the arguments raised are

foreclosed by circuit precedent but seeks to preserve them for

further review. The Government has moved for summary affirmance

in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. The motion is GRANTED,

and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
#### JACOBS v. STATE.

No. 20514.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 11, 1939.

No attorney for appellant.

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

GRAVES, Judge.

Conviction is for theft; punishment assessed is confinement in the State penitentiary for a term of two years.

The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exceptions. The indictment is sufficient to charge the offense. All matters of procedure appearing to be in due order, the judgment will be affirmed.
```

CONFIRMING STATEMENT

    This statement confirms that the undersigned, John J. Martin, has authorized and designated, Jennifer Mainord, Amanda C. Williams or Rhonda Bost, to execute and file on the undersignedTMs behalf, all Form 3, 4, and 5 (including amendments thereto) that the undersigned may be required to file with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission as a result of the undersignedTMs ownership of or transactions in securities of First Merchants Corporation.  The authority of Jennifer Mainord, Amanda C. Williams or Rhonda Bost under this statement shall continue until the undersigned is no longer required to file Form 3, 4, and 5 with regard to the undersigned ownership or transactions in securities of First Merchants Corporation, unless earlier revoked in writing.  The undersigned acknowledges Jennifer Mainord, Amanda C. Williams or Rhonda Bost are not assuming any of the undersignedTMs responsibilities to comply with Section 16 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

                        __/s/ John J. Martin______
                        John J. Martin

Date: February 13, 2014
```
EXHIBIT 32.1**CERTIFICATION**Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted), V.Bryan Lawlis, Chief Executive Officer of Aradigm Corporation (the “Company”), and Thomas C.Chesterman, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies that, to the best of hisknowledge:1. The Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2005, to whichthis Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the “Periodic Report”), fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and2. The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have set their hands hereto as of the 10th day ofNovember 2005.     /s/ V. BRYAN LAWLIS   /s/ THOMAS C. CHESTERMAN     V. Bryan Lawlis   Thomas C. Chesterman*President and Chief Executive Officer*   *Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer*
PUBLISH

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

In re:

HOWARD PHILLIPS,

Petitioner.

PAGE TRUE, Warden; UNITED

STATES BOARD OF PAROLE,

Real Parties in Interest.

No. 97-646

ORDER

Filed January 6, 1998

Before ANDERSON, BALDOCK, and HENRY, Circuit Judges.

This is an original proceeding in the nature of mandamus. Petitioner seeks: 

1) leave to proceed in this court without prepayment of costs or fees and 2) an

order compelling the district court to hear and decide his pending petition for writ

of habeas corpus, brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, case No. 95-CV-3465.
- 2 -

I.

We consider first the application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, as amended by the Prison Litigation Reform Act of

1995 (PLRA), prisoners proceeding in forma pauperis who bring a “civil action”

or appeal a judgment from a civil action must pay all filing fees. United States v.

Simmonds, 111 F.3d 737, 741 (10th Cir. 1997). We decided in Simmonds, id.

at 744, consistent with other circuits that have addressed the issue, that “neither

habeas corpus or 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceedings, nor appeals of those proceedings

are ‘civil actions’ for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915.” Shortly thereafter, we

added to the category of proceedings not covered by the PLRA mandatory

fee requirements those petitions for writs of habeas corpus brought under

28 U.S.C. § 2241. McIntosh v. United States Parole Comm’n, 115 F.3d 809, 812

(10th Cir. 1997) (§ 2241 proceedings and appeals of those proceedings not “civil

actions” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2) and (b)).

Upon further consideration of the matter, we now conclude that this circuit

will no longer require mandatory fees under the PLRA for filing petitions for

writs of mandamus seeking to compel district courts to hear and decide actions

brought solely under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241, 2254 and 2255. To the limited extent
1We have circulated this opinion to the en banc court, which has concurred with

this ruling.

- 3 -

that any of our earlier cases could be interpreted to the contrary, they are

overruled.1

We have examined the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis under

the appropriate standards, see McIntosh, 115 F.3d at 812-13, and conclude

petitioner has met the requisite criteria. Accordingly, the motion for leave to

proceed in forma pauperis is granted.

II.

Moving to the merits of the mandamus petition, we note that the district

court’s docket sheet reflects the underlying habeas corpus petition was filed in

November of 1995. It further appears that the cause has been pending, at issue,

since the filing of the government’s answer in April of 1996. We have previously

held that without more, this is too long for a habeas corpus petition to remain

unresolved.
- 4 -

Accordingly, the real parties in interest, other than petitioner, are directed

to respond to the petition. The district court judge to whom the case is assigned

may also respond, if he is so inclined. The responses shall be filed within twenty

days of the date of this order.

Entered for the Court

PATRICK FISHER, Clerk
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5 
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS FROM FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                           1,000
<CURRENCY>                      U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                   JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                     JUN-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                            1
<CASH>                             3,079,503
<SECURITIES>                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                      5,872,934
<ALLOWANCES>                         (65,000)
<INVENTORY>                                0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                   9,474,914
<PP&E>                             2,802,876
<DEPRECIATION>                      (610,042)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    15,029,073
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              2,798,530
<BONDS>                                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      0
<PREFERRED>                                0
<COMMON>                              39,521
<OTHER-SE>                        11,437,934
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      15,029,073
<SALES>                                    0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                   8,419,832
<CGS>                                      0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                      6,451,269
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                   (21,437)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    2,075,603
<INCOME-TAX>                         298,633
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                1,776,970
<DISCONTINUED>                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            0
<CHANGES>                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                       1,776,970
<EPS-PRIMARY>                           0.41
<EPS-DILUTED>                           0.41
        

</TABLE>