alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### GAGE v. STATE.

No. 18701.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 27, 1937.

Rehearing Denied March 10, 1937.

McCall & Broadus, of Beaumont, for appellant.

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

MORROW, Presiding Judge.

The offense is driving an automobile upon a public highway while intoxicated; penalty assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for a period of two years and the prohibition against driving a motor vehicle upon the public highways of the state for a term of two years.

The appellant, while driving an automobile upon the public highway, brought about a collision with a truck. The appellant’s testimony suggests that it was an accident; also that his physical condition at the time was due to the fact that he was nervous and excited. However, the State’s testimony is to the effect that he was drunk at the time. The officers found a half pint bottle containing about two inches of liquor in the car of the appellant at the time of his arrest.

There are no bills of exception challenging the rulings of the court upon the trial of the case.

In overruling the motion for new trial, we think the trial judge committed no error.

The judgment is affirmed.

On Motion For Rehearing.

LATTIMORE, Judge.

Appellant insists in his motion that, in his statement to the jury as to the law alleged to have been violated, the court below committed fundamental error. We have examined the charge of the court and find nothing to lead us to believe there is any substance in the contention. The testimony showed appellant to be drunk. The trial court told the jury in the charge that if they believed beyond a reasonable doubt that this appellant, at the time in question, was intoxicated, or under the influence of intoxicating liquor, and while so intoxicated he drove a motor vehicle upon a public highway in Jefferson county, they should find him guilty. The court instructed the jury that by the term “intoxicated” *217is meant that one has taken into his system a sufficient quantity of intoxicating liquor to deprive him of his normal, physical, or mental faculties. Nothing in this could inure to the injury of appellant. Nor can we agree that the evidence is not sufficient to support the conviction.

The motion for rehearing is overruled.
EXHIBIT 10.9

FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE OXFORD INDUSTRIES, INC.  DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN  AS AMENDED AND RESTATED EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2008

WHEREAS, Oxford Industries, Inc. ("Oxford") sponsors the Oxford
Industries, Inc. Deferred Compensation Plan, as amended and restated effective January 1, 2008 (the "Plan"); and

WHEREAS,
Oxford desires to amend the Plan to change the definition of eligible employee for purposes of determining who may participate in the Plan, and also to modify the rate of
employer matching contributions available under the Plan.

NOW
THEREFORE, Oxford, pursuant to the approval of its Board of Directors, hereby amends the Plan as follows effective as of January 1, 2010:



IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, Oxford has caused this First Amendment to the Plan to be executed on the date set forth below.

OXFORD INDUSTRIES, INC.By:

/s/ THOMAS C. CHUBB IIIName:

Thomas C. Chubb IIITitle:

PresidentDate:

December 7, 2009


---



QuickLinks
I

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION IX

75 Hawthorne Street

San Francisco, CA 941 05-3901

MAY 12011 Mr. Robert D. Fletcher

Deputy Executive Officer

California Air Resources Board

Post Office Box 2815

Sacramo, California 95812

Dear 1letcher:

On April 5, 2011, the California Air Resources Board submitted revisions to the

California State Implementation Plan. On May 6, 2011, I wrote to you that EPA had

found all revisions in the April 5th submittal complete. Unfortunately, our May 6th letter

incorrectly identified several Placer County submittals. I am providing below a corrected

list ofthe submitted revisions that we found complete on May 6th.

APCD/AQMD Rule # Rule Title

Lake County 470 Air Toxic Control Measure for Emissions

of Toxic PM From In-Use Agricultural

Compression Ignition Engines

Mojave Desert 1 1 16 Automotive Refinishing Operations

Placer County 218 Architectural Coatings

Placer County 234 Automotive Refinishing Operations

Placer County 236 Wood Products Coating Operations

Placer County 238 Factory Coating of Flat Wood Paneling

Sacramento Metropolitan 414 Boilers, Water Heaters and Process

Heaters Rated Less than I Million Btu/hr

Sacramento Metropolitan 448 Gasoline Transfer Into Stationary Storage

Containers

Sacramento Metropolitan 449 Transfer of Gasoline Into Vehicle Fuel

Tanks

Sacramento Metropolitan 451 Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal

Parts and Products

Sacramento Metropolitan 466 Solvent Cleaning

San Joaquin Valley 4103 Final Staff Report and Recommendations

on Agricultural Burning

San Joaquin Valley 4354 Glass Melting Furnaces

San Joaquin Valley 4570 Confined Animal Facilities

San Joaquin Valley 4612 Motor Vehicle and Mobile Equipment

Coating Operations

San Joaquin Valley 4653 Adhesives and Sealants

Santa Barbara County 102 Definitions

Santa Barbara County 202 Exemptions to Rule 201

Santa Barbara County 321 Solvent Cleaning Machines and Solvent

Cleaning

South Coast 1 143 Consumer Paint Thinners & Multi

Purpose Solvents

Printed an Recvled Paper
2

South Coast 1 144 Metalworking Fluids and Direct-Contact

Lubricants

South Coast 1 171 Solvent Cleaning Operations

South Coast I 175 Control of Emissions from the

Manufacture of Polymeric Cellular

(Foam) Products

South Coast 2002 Allocations For Oxides ofNitrogen

(NOx) and Oxides of Sulfur (Sox)

Yolo Solano 2.43 Biomass Boilers

This addresses all revisions in this submittal. In the coming months we will review the

complete revisions for action pursuant to Clean Air Act section 110(k).

Questions regarding our completeness review should be directed to Cynthia G. Allen at

(415) 947-4120.

Sincerely,

/h//t

Deborah Jordan

Director, Air Division

cc: Mr. Thomas J. Christofk, APCO

Placer County APCD

Mr. Michael Guzzetta, Manager

Rule Evaluation Section

Stationary Source Division
Exhibit 32.1
 Written Statement of Chief Executive Officer  Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  (a)
    
    the Form 10-Q of Colonial Realty Limited Partnership for the quarter ended June 30,
2008 filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report)
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934; and(b)
    
    information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Colonial Realty Limited Partnership.
 By:

/s/ C. Reynolds Thompson, IIIC. Reynolds Thompson, IIIChief Executive Officer of Colonial Properties Trust,
the general partner of Colonial Realty
Limited Partnership  51
Exhibit
32.1








CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


AND CHIEF
FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In
connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report On Form 10-QSB of Jag Media
Group, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ending June 30, 2008, I, Dean
Elliott, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company
hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and
belief, that:





1. Such
Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending June 30, 2008, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter
ending June 30, 2008, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.





Dated:
July 29, 2008





Jag Media
Group, Inc.





By: /s/ Dean
Elliott


Chief
Executive Officer and


Chief
Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.2
 Written Statement of Chief Financial Officer  Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  (a)
    
    the Form 10-Q of Colonial Realty Limited Partnership for the quarter ended September
30, 2008 filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and(b)
    
    information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Colonial Realty Limited Partnership.
 By:
    /s/ Weston M. AndressWeston M. AndressPresident and Chief Financial Officer of
Colonial Properties Trust, the general partner
of Colonial Realty Limited PartnershipNovember 7, 2008 58
# C_2017424EN.01002802.xml

| 11.12.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 424/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.12.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 424/28

---

Judgment of the General Court of 26 October 2017 — KPN v Commission

(Case T-394/15) (1)

1

((Competition - Concentrations - Netherlands market for television services and telecommunications services - Decision declaring the concentration compatible with the internal market and the EEA Agreement - Commitments - Duty to state reasons - Relevant market - Vertical effects - Judicial review))

(2017/C 424/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: KPN BV (The Hague, Netherlands) (represented by: J. de Pree, C. van der Hoeven and G. Hakopian, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Malferrari, J. Szczodrowski, H. van Vliet and F. van Schaik, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 7241 final of 10 October 2014 declaring the concentration involving the acquisition by Liberty Global plc of sole control over Ziggo NV to be compatible with the internal market and the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/M.7000 — Liberty Global/Ziggo) (OJ 2015, C 145, p. 7)

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Commission Decision C(2014) 7241 final declaring the concentration involving the acquisition by Liberty Global plc of sole control over Ziggo NV to be compatible with the internal market and the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/M.7000 — Liberty Global/Ziggo); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Commission Decision C(2014) 7241 final declaring the concentration involving the acquisition by Liberty Global plc of sole control over Ziggo NV to be compatible with the internal market and the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/M.7000 — Liberty Global/Ziggo);

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 302, 14.9.2015.

1

---
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 188 (Friday, September 27, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 79327-79328]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-22164]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION


Interest Rates

    The Small Business Administration publishes an interest rate called 
the Optional Peg Rate (13 CFR 120.214) on a quarterly basis. This rate 
is a weighted

[[Page 79328]]

average cost of money to the government for maturities similar to the 
average SBA direct loan. This rate may be used as a base rate for 
guaranteed fluctuating interest rate SBA loans. This rate will be 4.38 
percent for the October-December quarter of FY 2025.
    Pursuant to 13 CFR 120.921(b), the maximum legal interest rate for 
any Third Party Lender's commercial loan which funds any portion of the 
cost of a 504 project (see 13 CFR 120.801) shall be 6% over the New 
York Prime rate or, if that exceeds the maximum interest rate permitted 
by the constitution or laws of a given State, the maximum interest rate 
will be the rate permitted by the constitution or laws of the given 
State.

David Parrish,
Chief, Secondary Market Division.
[FR Doc. 2024-22164 Filed 9-26-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
Exhibit



	
		
	
	Exhibit 10.2







June 13, 2017




Ramy Tadros
[address redacted]


Dear Ramy,


I am pleased to offer you the following sign-on payments in connection with the beginning of your employment with Metlife Group, Inc. in the position of Executive Vice President and Chief Risk Officer, subject to the approval of MetLife’s Compensation Committee and Board of Directors.


Sign-On Payments


Based on the information you provided us, we understand you will forfeit certain compensation awards from your current employer if you accept employment with us.  With the understanding you will be joining MetLife during the 2017 performance year and as a result, will not be considered for full incentive compensation awards for this performance year, I will recommend to MetLife’s Compsenation Committee and Board of Directors that you be offered the following, subject to appropriate verification of loss/forfeiture and your actual start date:


		
	•
	Should you leave your current employer and forfeit your 2017 cash incentive payment, MetLife will make a one-time cash sign-on payment of $1,408,350 to cover the portion you forfeited, paid to you in two parts:  $500,000 within 30 days of hire, and the balance by December 31, 2017.


		
	•
	Should you leave your current employer and forfeit your Deferred Compensation and/or Restricted Stock Units that would otherwise vest in February 2018, MetLife will make a one-time cash sign-on payment of $663,000, paid within 30 days after your first anniversary with MetLife.




Each of these cash sign-on payments will be paid to you in a lump sum less applicable taxes and other required withholding.  Payments will be made to you only if you maintain contuous employment and satisfactory performance through each payment date.  In the event you voluntarily terminate your employment for any reason whatsoever or your employment is terminated for cause within 


1









24 months of each payment, you will repay the full amount of this payment to MetLife to the extent permissible under law.  You may not defer these payments.


Other Terms


This is not an employment contract, and does not represent a guarantee of continued employment for any period of time.  Employment at MetLife is “employment at will,” which means that either you or MetLife may terminate the relationship at any time with or without cause or notice.  For the avoidance of doubt, this letter supersedes any and all other correspondence or oral statements previously provided to you on the subject of sign-on payments from MetLife, and such other correspondence or statements are hereby null and void and of no further effect.


	
			
	Sincerely,
	 
	I accept this job offer.

	 
	 
	 

	/s/ Steven A. Kandarian
	 
	Ramy Tadros            

	Steven A. Kandarian
	 
	Name (printed)

	Chairman, President & Chief
	 
	 

	Executive Officer
	 
	June 14th, 2017

	 
	 
	Date

	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	/s/ Ramy Tadros

	 
	 
	(Signature)
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

September 28, 2009 

p0921 

Order 

 

September 28, 2009 

139004 

PHILLIP DEAN COOPER, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 139004 

 COA: 283506 

Wayne CC: 06-612077-NI 

RAVIS JENKINS and MARY LOUISE 

WOODSON, 

Defendants, 

and 

FARM BUREAU INSURANCE COMPANY, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 24, 2009 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
**Exhibit 5.1****[LETTERHEAD OF COMPLETE PRODUCTION SERVICES, INC.]**March 26, 2007Complete Production Services, Inc.
#### HOLLAND TEXAS HYPOTHEEK BANK OF AMSTERDAM, HOLLAND, v. NOLEN et al.

No. 10322.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

Nov. 17, 1937.

Nall & Weller, of Beaumont; for appellant.

T. M. Cox, of Beeville, for appellees.

SMITH, Chief Justice.

On July 14, 1937, appellant obtained a money judgment against E. E. Nolen and wife in the district court of the Seventy-Third judicial district, in and for Bexar county, together with foreclosure of a lien upon a tract of land in Bee county, owned by the Nolens.

In due course execution and order of sale issued out of the Bexar district court, to the proper officer of Bee county, and in pursuance thereof the officer levied upon said land and advertised it for sale, as provided by law.

Before the time appointed for the sale the Nolens obtained a temporary injunction from the district court of Bee county, in and for the Thirty-Sixth judicial district, restraining the sale of said land under or by virtue of said execution and order of sale.

The writ, of injunction was made returnable to said district court of Bee county. The, bank has appealed from the order granting the temporary injunction.

It is provided by statute that “writs of injunction granted to stay proceedings in a suit, or execution on a judgment, shall be returnable to and tried in the court where such suit is pending, or such judgment was rendered.” Article 4656, R.S.1925.

The statutes provide certain exceptions to this rule, but there is no pretense that this case comes within any of those exceptions. Articles 4643, 4646. The result is that, had the district court of Bee County had jurisdiction to -grant the injunction in this case in any event, the provision in the writ making the same returnable to that court was erroneous.

But the injunction should not have been granted in any event, because it does not appear from the bill therefor that the judgment of the district court of Bexar county, out of which was issued the order of sale sought to be restrained, was void. In their bill for injunction appellees did not set out the judgment of the Bexar district court, in haec verba, or in purported substance, nor did they allege any specific facts, or any facts, or even conclusions, from *231which it may be inferred that said judgment was void, and therefore the presumption in favor of its validity is conclusive, so far as this appeal is concerned.

Since the petition failed to show the judgment in process of enforcement was void, the distict court of Bee county was without jurisdiction to restrain its execution. Carey v. Looney, 113 Tex. 93, 251 S.W. 1040; Murph v. Bass (Tex.Civ.App.) 276 S.W. 767.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause dismissed, at the cost of appellees in this and the court below.
# C_2022427EN.01001701.xml

| 9.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 427/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/17

---

EUROPEAN DEFENCE AGENCY

Publication of the final accounts for the financial year 2021

(2022/C 427/17)

The complete version of the final accounts may be found at the following address:

https://eda.europa.eu/docs/default-source/finance-documents/eda-general-audited-annual-accounts-2021_final.pdf

---
EXHIBIT 23(d)

 

[MILLER AND LENTS, LTD. LETTERHEAD]

 

CONSENT OF OIL AND GAS CONSULTANT

As oil and gas consultants, Miller and Lents, Ltd. hereby consents to the use of its name and independent report dated November 1, 2001 in this Form 10-K, incorporated by reference into Peoples Energy Corporation's previously filed Registration Statement File Nos. 2-82760, 33-6369, 333-17701, 33-63193, and 333-09993.

 
MILLER AND LENTS, LTD.
 
 
 
By /s/ Christopher A. Butta
 
Christopher A. Butta
 
Senior Vice President

 

Houston, Texas

November 28, 2001
KCS Energy, Inc.










EXHIBIT 10.3  



Effective Date:  August 1, 2004  








Re:  Amendment No. 1 to Employment
Agreement  




Dear Mr. Stout:  



When countersigned by you, this
letter will serve as an amendment (referred to here as “Amendment No. 1”) to your
existing employment agreement with KCS Energy, Inc. (the “Company”) dated December 1,
2001 (the “Original Agreement”).   



          1.
“Change in Control” Provision. Section 11.1 of the Original Agreement is amended
by deleting the words “after the date of this Agreement and on or before August 31, 2004
(but not thereafter)” and substituting therefor the words “after the date of this
Agreement and on or before August 31, 2006 (but not thereafter)”.   



          2.
Original Agreement Ratified. In all other respects, the Original Agreement
remains in effect, and is ratified by you and by the Company.   



* * *  



Please sign below and return a
signed copy to the Company to confirm your agreement with this Amendment No. 1.  





Very truly yours,  



KCS Energy, Inc.   




/s/ James Christmas 
Chairman and
Chief Executive Officer  



Accepted and agreed to:   




/s/ Harry Lee Stout
-82 -80 -78 -76 -74 -72

 36

 38

 40

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 100

18 12 06 00

06/17

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 17 Jun 06

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.92 N 77.01 W Meters AGL

★

■

■

■

■

★

■

■ ■ ■

★

●

●

●

●

★

● ●

● ●
Control No. ______________



## VEHICLE RELEASE

OWNER’S NAME DATE

VIN YEAR MAKE & MODEL

VEHICLE ACCEPTED VEHICLE REJECTED



### I,

, owner ( ) and/or joint owner ( )

and/or principal driver ( ), acknowledge receipt of my vehicle in the same condition as when loaned to Jacobs,

a contractor to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, on

________________________. I have inspected

the veh icle for damage and release Jacobs of any responsibili ty for damage

.

SIGNATURE DATE

Privacy Act Statement

Title 42, United States Code, Section 7451, Compliance by vehicles and engines in actual use, authorizes the

collection of this information. The primary use is to provide an instrument by which individuals may indicate

interest in and eligibility for participating in EPA’s Light

- Duty In

- Use Testing Program. Additional disclosures of

this information may be made pursuant to published routine uses, including to appropriate agencies for law

enforcement purposes and to contractors working for EPA who have a need to know in the course of that work.

Providing the requested information is voluntary, but failing to do so will result in EPA’s inability to approve your

participation in the Light

- Duty In

- Use Testing Program.

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to vary from 1 to 60 minutes per

response, with an average of 30 minute s per response, including time for reviewing instructions, searching

existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the

collection of information. Send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other asp ect of this

collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Chief, Information Policy Branch,

PM

- 223, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,40l M St., S.W. Washington, DC. 20460; and to the Office

of Information and Regulator y Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC. 20503.



### EPA Form #5900

- 304 OMB No. 2060

- 0086 Expires ( ### )