alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# FILED
March 30, 1998 Cecil W. Crowson Appellate Cou rt Clerk IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE JANUARY 1996 SESSION

STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) NO. 01C01-9506-CC-00182 ) Appellee, ) Giles County

) VS. ) Honorable James L. Weatherford, Judge ) JOHNNY WAYNE TILLERY, ) (Possession of cocaine with the intent to sell) ) Appellant. )

CONCURRING OPINION I fully concur with

the opinion. I would add t hat the opinion of our supreme court in State v. Jones , 598 S.W.2d 209 (Tenn. 1980), supports the conclusion reached by this court even though all of the recorded statemen ts were allowed into evidenc

e. In Jones , the supreme court warned that "any statement made by a non testifying pa rty to the conversat ion which tends to be prej udicial to the defendant must be redacted, unless admi ssible under some other rul e of law." Id. at 223. Here, however, the challenged portions o f Brooks's statements are not prejudicial. When Brooks made assurances that he was responsible a nd that the defend ant shou ld not "ta ke the fa ll," that tended t o be more exculpato ry, in my view, than incriminatory. Bec ause there was no prejudi ce, there could have been no
error.

_________________________________ Gary R. Wade, Judge
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3329 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3329

        To increase the number of operational aircraft carriers.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 29, 2015

 Mr. Conaway introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
        To increase the number of operational aircraft carriers.

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

SECTION 1. INCREASE IN NUMBER OF OPERATIONAL AIRCRAFT CARRIERS.

    (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
            (1) In light of the increased array of complex threats 
        across the globe, the Navy is operating at maximum capacity, 
        increasing deployment lengths, and decreasing maintenance 
        periods in order to meet operational requirements.
            (2) Deployment lengths now frequently extend to 10 months, 
        which places considerable strain on personnel, equipment, and 
        platforms.
            (3) Upon return from deployment, units are often placed in 
        ``surge status'', requiring them to maintain high levels of 
        readiness and to quickly re-deploy if necessary.
            (4) An additional carrier strike group would give the 
        Secretary of Defense greater flexibility in deploying naval 
        forces as well as increase forward naval presence. It would 
        also improve the health and long-term service life of the 
        existing fleet by providing for longer maintenance and repair 
        time.
    (b) Increase in Number of Carriers.--Section 5062(b) of title 10, 
United States Code, is amended by striking ``11 operational aircraft 
carriers'' and inserting ``12 operational aircraft carriers''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (b) shall 
take effect on September 30, 2023.
                                 <all>
```
##### 








---



##### 



-1-




---



##### 



ARTICLE ONE
 Relation to Indenture
 Additional Definitions
          -2-




---



##### 



-3-




---



##### 



-4-




---



##### 



-5-




---



##### 



ARTICLE TWO
  Title of the Securities.
 Limitation on Aggregate Principal Amount. provided however
 Stated Maturity.
 Interest and Interest Rates
    -6-




---



##### 



Place of Payment.
 Place of Registration or Exchange; Notices and Demands With Respect to the Notes.
 Percentage of Principal Amount.
 Global Securities. Exhibit A
 Form of Securities. Exhibit A
 Securities Registrar.
 Defeasance and Discharge; Covenant Defeasance
    -7-




---



##### 



Sinking Fund Obligations.
 ARTICLE THREE
  Maintenance of Properties. provided however
 Payment of Taxes and Other Claims. provided however
 Restrictions on Liens. provided however
 -8-




---



##### 



-9-




---



##### 



-10-




---



##### 



Restrictions on Sale and Leaseback Transactions.
 -11-




---



##### 



Expiration of Restrictions on Liens and Restrictions on Sale and Leaseback
Transactions
 ARTICLE FOUR
  Redemption Price
   provided
 Make-Whole Premium Calculation
 -12-




---



##### 



Partial Redemption.
 Notice of Optional Redemption.
 ARTICLE FIVE
  Additional Event of Default; Acceleration of Maturity
  -13-




---



##### 



Expiration of Additional Event of Default
 -14-




---



##### 



ARTICLE SIX
        -15-




---



##### 



CENTERPOINT ENERGY RESOURCES CORP.By:Name:
    Gary L. WhitlockTitle:
    Executive Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer Attest:__________________________________
Name: Richard B. Dauphin
Title: Assistant Corporate Secretary  THE BANK OF NEW YORK TRUST COMPANY, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION,
As TrusteeBy:Name:
    Marcella BurgessTitle:
    Assistant Vice President  -16-




---



##### 



Exhibit A
      No. ______
    
    $______
CUSIP No. 15189W AD2
 provided
 A-1




---



##### 



provided however
   A-2




---



##### 



Dated: October 23, 2007
    CENTERPOINT ENERGY RESOURCES CORP.By:(SEAL)
    
    Name:
    Gary L. WhitlockTitle:
    Executive Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer Attest:__________________________________

Name: Richard B. Dauphin
Title: Assistant Corporate Secretary  THE BANK OF NEW YORK TRUST COMPANY, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION
As Trustee  By:Authorized Signatory A-3




---



##### 



provided however
    A-4




---



##### 



A-5




---



##### 



A-6




---



##### 



A-7
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 312 

To amend the Defense Base Act (42 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) to require death 

benefits to be paid to a deceased employee’s designated beneficiary or 

next of kin in the case of death resulting from a war-risk hazard 

or act of terrorism occurring on or after September 11, 2001. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 13, 2015 

Mr. LYNCH (for himself and Mr. CONNOLLY) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL 

To amend the Defense Base Act (42 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) 

to require death benefits to be paid to a deceased employee’s designated beneficiary or next of kin in the 

case of death resulting from a war-risk hazard or act 

of terrorism occurring on or after September 11, 2001. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Glen Anthony Doherty 

5 Overseas Security Personnel Fairness Act’’. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 312 IH

1 SEC. 2. DEFENSE BASE ACT AMENDMENTS RELATING TO 

2 DEATH BENEFITS. 

3 The Defense Base Act (42 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) is 

4 amended by adding at the end the following new section: 

5 ‘‘SEC. 6. DEATH BENEFITS. 

6 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—In the case of a person covered 

7 by this Act who dies as a result of a war-risk hazard or 

8 act of terrorism, if there is no person eligible for a death 

9 benefit of the deceased under section 9 of the Longshore 

10 and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. 909), 

11 then the benefits provided under section 9(b) of such Act 

12 to a widow or widower of the deceased shall be paid— 

13 ‘‘(1) to a beneficiary designated by the de14 ceased; or 

15 ‘‘(2) if there is no designated beneficiary, to the 

16 next of kin or the estate of the deceased under appli17 cable State law. 

18 ‘‘(b) PAYMENT OF BENEFITS.—Benefits found to be 

19 due under this section shall be paid from the compensation 

20 fund established pursuant to section 8147 of title 5, 

21 United States Code. 

22 ‘‘(c) WAR-RISK HAZARD DEFINED.—In this section, 

23 the term ‘war-risk hazard’ has the meaning provided in 

24 section 201(b) of the War Hazards Compensation Act (42 

25 U.S.C. 1711(b)). 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 312 IH

1 ‘‘(d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The death benefit payable 

2 under this section shall apply with respect to deaths occur3 ring on or after September 11, 2001.’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
EX-10.3



 Exhibit 10.3 

SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE 

FIFTH THIRD BANCORP UNFUNDED DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN 

FOR NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS 

(June 1, 2013 Restatement) 

WHEREAS, Fifth Third Bancorp (“Fifth Third”) sponsors and maintains the Fifth Third Bancorp Unfunded Deferred Compensation
Plan for Non-Employee Directors, as amended and restated effective June 1, 2013 (“Plan”); 

WHEREAS, Fifth Third desires to amend the Plan to (i) close Plan participation to new Charter Board and Affiliate Board directors;
(ii) add a statute of limitations period for benefit claims; and (iii) make other changes; and 
 WHEREAS, pursuant to Plan
section 12.1, Fifth Third reserved the right to amend the Plan at any time, and delegated authority to the Fifth Third Bank Pension, 401(k) and Medical Plan Committee and its Chairman to amend the Plan. 

NOW, THEREFORE, effective as of the execution date of this Second Amendment, the Plan is hereby amended in the following respects: 

1.    Section 2.5 of the Plan is amended in its entirety to read as follows: 

 

	 	“2.5	 ‘Committee’ shall mean The Fifth Third Bank Pension, 401(k), and Medical Plan Committee which
is responsible for the administration of this Plan in accordance with the provisions of the Plan as set forth in this document. Where applicable, a reference to the Committee includes its delegate.” 
	 

 2.    Section 3.1 of the Plan is amended to add the following paragraphs at the
end: 
 “Notwithstanding the foregoing, no individual who first becomes a member of a Fifth Third Bank
Charter Board or Affiliate Board on or after January 1, 2017 shall be eligible to participate in the Plan. 

Further, any individual who was a member of a Fifth Third Bank Charter Board or Affiliate Board prior to
January 1, 2017 shall be eligible to participate in the Plan for the 2018 Plan Year only if, as of the first day of the Open Enrollment Period for 2018, the individual had a balance in his Account under the Plan. 

Further, any individual who was a member of a Fifth Third Bank Charter Board or Affiliate Board prior to
January 1, 2017 shall be eligible to participate in the Plan for Plan Years after 2018 only if, as of the first day of the Open Enrollment Period for any such Plan Year, (a) the individual had a balance in his Account under the Plan and
(b) the individual had a deferral election in effect for the immediately previous Plan Year.” 







 3.    Section 13.3 of the Plan is amended to add the following sentence
at the end: 
 “No such lawsuit may commence later than one year from the date of decision on review by the Claims
Review Committee.” 
 4.    Except as otherwise amended herein, the Plan shall continue in full force and effect.

 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Fifth Third has caused this amendment to be executed by its duly authorized representative this 26th day of October, 2017. 
  

			
	FIFTH THIRD BANCORP
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Robert P. Shaffer

		 	Chairperson for the Fifth Third Bank
		 	Pension, 401(k) and Medical Plan
		 	Committee



  
 2
#### PELFREY v. JORDAN.

No. 839.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Eastland.

March 20, 1931.

Samuel C. Harris, of Lovington, N. M., for appellant.

W. H. Garrett, of Colorado, Tex., for appel-lee.

HICKMAN, C. J.

This case has not been briefed by either party. A motion by appellee to dismiss the appeal on account of the failure of appellant to file briefs was overruled at a former day of this term. The rules have been definitely interpreted by the Supreme Court in Haynes v. J. M. Radford Gro. Co., 118 Tex. 277, 14 S.W.(2d) 811, to vest a discretion in Courts of Civil Appeals, when appellant fails to file briefs. Under this hplding we are authorized either to dismiss the appeal, or to inspect the record to determine whether fundamental error appears thereon. Should no fundamental error appear after inspection, we are authorized to affirm the judgment of the trial court, but should reverse that judgment if fundamental error does appear. In passing upon appellee’s motion to dismiss we determined to inspect the'record, so that, if fundamental error appeared, appellant could have the benefit thereof. Accordingly, we have inspected this record and it discloses the following:

The action was for rent alleged to be due under a written contract, and for the foreclosure of a contract lien upon personal property, given to secure the rent. The case was tried before the court without the aid of a jury, and no findings of fact or conclusions of law were requested. The petition declares upon an indebtedness for an amount within the jurisdiction of the county court, and alleges the value of the personal property upon which foreclosure was sought to be $566.12. The petition therefore affirmatively discloses that the trial court had jurisdiction to hear and determine the cause. No essential allegation is omitted from the petition. The judgment was rendered during a regular term of the court, after answer filed by appellant, and for an amount less than that claimed in the petition. It therefore appears that no fundamental error was committed in the rendition of this judgment, and, since we can consider no other question in the absence of a brief, it is our order that the judgment of the trial court be affirmed.
Exhibit
32.1




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Cavalier Holdings, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Leo
Mentzelopoulos, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,
as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my
knowledge:




(1) the
Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and




(2) the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.




Date: August 7, 2009
                /s/ Leo
      MentzelopoulosLeo
      Mentzelopoulos
                  President
      and Chief Financial Officer
                  (Principal
      Executive Officer and Principal Financial
                  Officer)




This
certification accompanies this Report on Form 10-Q pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by
such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). Such
certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing
under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the
extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by
reference.
# C_2004161EN.01S00301.xml

| 18.6.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/s3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.6.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/s3

---

NOTICE

NOTICE

On 18 June 2004, in the Official Journal of the European Union C 161 A, the ‘Common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species — Tenth supplement to the 22nd complete edition’ and ‘Common catalogue of vegetable species — Fourth supplement to the 22nd complete edition’ will be published.

Official Journal of the European Union

Subscribers to the Official Journal may obtain the same number of copies and language versions of this Official Journal as those to which they subscribe free of charge. They are requested to return the attached order form, duly completed and bearing their subscription registration number (code appearing on the left of each label and beginning with: O/..........). This Official Journal will remain available free of charge for one year from the date of its publication.

Non-subscribers can order this Official Journal against payment from one of our sales offices (see overleaf).

This Official Journal — like all Official Journals (L,C,CA,CE) — can be consulted free of charge online at http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex

Image

---
SIGNATURES

       Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities 
Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed
on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.

PITTSBURGH & WEST VIRGINIA RAILROAD


By    /s/    Robert A. Hamstead                           
             Robert A. Hamstead
          Vice President and Secretary-Treasurer

Date: March 15, 1999


       Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 
this report has been signed below by the following persons on behalf of the 
registrant and in the capacities and on the dates indicated.


 
   /s/  Herbert E. Jones, Jr.                          /s/  Virgil E. Wenger
        Herbert E. Jones, Jr.                               Virgil E. Wenger
     Chairman of the Board and Trustee          Assistant Secretary, Assistant
                                                       Treasurer and Trustee

   
   /s/  Charles T. Jones                               /s/  Lewis B. Harder   
        Charles T. Jones                                    Lewis B. Harder
     Alternate Chairman, President and                 Trustee
         Trustee

Date:   March 15, 1999
EXHIBIT 35.1

VW Credit, Inc. Annual Servicer Compliance Statement

Pursuant to Section 7.11 of the Transaction SUBI Servicing Supplement

And Item 1123 of Regulation AB





VOLKSWAGEN AUTO
LEASE TRUST 2012-A





The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of VW Credit, Inc. (VCI), as Servicer under the Transaction SUBI Supplement 2012-A to Servicing
Agreement dated as of June 21, 2012 (as amended and supplemented, or otherwise modified and in effect from time to time, the Transaction SUBI Servicing Supplement), by and among VW Credit Leasing, Ltd., VCI, as Servicer, and U.S.
Bank National Association, as SUBI Trustee, does hereby certify that:



| | 1. | A review of the activities of the Servicer during the period from January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2013, and of its performance under the Transaction SUBI Servicing Supplement was conducted under my
supervision.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has, fulfilled all of its obligations under the Transaction SUBI Servicing Supplement in all material respects throughout such period.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate on behalf of the Servicer this twenty-eighth day of March, 2014.



/s/ Dr. Christian DahlheimName: Dr. Christian DahlheimTitle:   Executive Vice President & CFO
#### FORD et al. v. STATE ex rel. SCHULTZ.

No. 5131.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Amarillo.

March 18, 1940.

Art Schlofman, of Dalhart, and Works & Bassett, of Amarillo, for appellants.

Harry Schultz, J. S. Bailey, and Tatum & Tatum, all of Dalhart, for appellees.

STOKES, Justice.

This is an appeal from a temporary injunction granted by the district judge in Chambers enjoining and restraining appellants from removing or in any manner molesting a building located upon property formerly belonging to them but which had been condemned for highway purposes. In connection with their motion to dissolve the temporary injunction appellants filed an answer to the allegations of the petition and, upon grounds alleged in their answer, they sought, by way of cross-action, an injunction against appellees and the sheriff of Dallam County restraining them from executing a writ of possession which had been placed in the hands of the sheriff.

The case made by the petition, the motion to dissolve and the answer and cross-action was set for hearing on the 25th of April, 1939. On that day, the record shows, all parties appeared and announced ready for trial. The court heard the pleadings, the evidence and argument of counsel and, after duly considering the same, rendered judgment denying the motion to dissolve the injunction theretofore granted, denying also the application for injunction contained in appellants’ cross-action and extending the original injunction until the further orders of the court. It is from that judgment this appeal is prosecuted.

The record is before us without a statement of facts, assignments of error or briefs and we are not apprised, therefore, of the nature of appellants’ complaint of the judgment. We have examined the transcript, including the pleadings, judgments and other documents shown therein and we do not find anything in the record which' could be considered fundamental error. The rule is well established by the decisions that the granting or refusing of a temporary injunction is a matter that rests within the sound discretion of the trial court and, unless it clearly appears from the record that there has been an abuse of that discretion, the action of the trial court will not be disturbed by an appellate tribunal. Harding v. Pearson & Co., Tex.Com.App., 48 S.W.2d 964; Southland Life Ins. Co. v. Egan, 126 Tex. 160, 86 S.W.2d 722; City of Farmersville v. Texas-Louisiana Power Co., Tex.Civ.App., 33 S.W.2d 271, 272; Woods v. Humber, Tex.Civ.App., 282 S.W. 834; City of Waco v. Grimes, Tex.Civ.App., 279 S.W. 312.

Appellees’ pleadings were amply sufficient to support the relief granted and, in the absence of a statement of facts, we have no way of knowing what was shown by the evidence. The record shows that the case was presented by both pleadings and evidence and we must presume the evidence was sufficient to support the judgment rendered by the trial court.

We find no error revealed by the record and the judgment of the court below will be affirmed.