alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
| Dated:      November  24, 2009 |                                                                                  |                      |
|------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------|
|                                     |                                                                                  |
|                                     |                                                                                  |                      |
|                                     |                                                                                  |  /s/      David Ly   |
|                                     | DAVID      LY                                                                         |
|                                     | CHIEF      EXECUTIVE OFFICER(Principal      Executive Officer)                        |
|                                     |                                                                                  |                      |
| Dated:      November  24, 2009 |                                                                                  |
|                                     |                                                                                  |                      |
|                                     |                                                                                  | /s/      Robert J. Brilon |
|                                     | ROBERT      J. BRILON                                                                 |
|                                     | INTERIM      CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER(Principal      Financial and Accounting Officer) |

----
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 22-0665

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

SCOTT ALAN LEHRKAMP,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including April 5, 2023, within which to prepare, file, and 

serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

February 27 2023

02/27/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0665
##### 



Exhibit 10.3
 SPECTRA ENERGY PARTNERS, LP
LONG-TERM INCENTIVE PLAN
 SECTION 1. Purpose of the Plan .
  SECTION 2. Definitions .




---



##### 



The Wall Street Journal
         2




---



##### 



SECTION 3. Administration .
  3




---



##### 



SECTION 4. Units .
 Limits on Units Deliverable
 Sources of Units Deliverable Under Awards
 Adjustments
 SECTION 5. Eligibility .
  SECTION 6. Awards .
 Unit Options
 Exercise Price
 4




---



##### 



Time and Method of Exercise
 Forfeitures
 Restricted Units and Phantom Units
 UDRs
 Forfeitures
 5




---



##### 



Lapse of Restrictions
 Phantom Units 1 2
 Restricted Units 1 2
 DERs
 Performance Awards
 Unit Bonus
 General
 Awards May Be Granted Separately or Together
 6




---



##### 



Limits on Transfer of Awards
    Term of Awards
 Unit Certificates
 Consideration for Grants
 Delivery of Units or other Securities and Payment by Participant of
Consideration
 Substitution Awards
 7




---



##### 



SECTION 7. Amendment and Termination .
  Amendments to the Plan
 Amendments to Awards
 Actions Upon the Occurrence of Certain Events
   8




---



##### 



SECTION 8. General Provisions .
 No Rights to Award
 Tax Withholding
 No Right to Employment or Services
 Governing Law
 Severability
 9




---



##### 



Other Laws
 No Trust or Fund Created
 No Fractional Units
 Headings
 Facility Payment
 Participation by Affiliates
 Gender and Number
 Compliance with Section 409A
 10




---



##### 



SECTION 9. Term of the Plan .
   SPECTRA ENERGY PARTNERS GP, LLCBy:

/s/
C. Gregory HarperTitle: President and Chief Executive
Officer 11
No. 12-15-00082- CR
DAVID MARK DAVIS II

v. STA TE OF TEXAS § § § § § IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TW ELFTH JUDICIAL REGION
TYLER , TEXAS

APPELLANT'S NOTICE OF CHANGE OF MAILING ADDRESS Appellant , David Mark Davis II, files this notice of change of mailing address with the clerk of the court. 1) Appellant ’s current mailing address should be changed to: David Mark Davis II PO Box 530908 Harlingen, Texas 78553 2) Appe llant ’s physical address has not changed and should remain 905 N. Loop 499, Apt. 525; Harlingen, Texas 78550.

Re spectfully Submitted,

Da vid Mark Davis II Appellant, Pro Se

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify th a t at the time o f f iling, a copy o f

th e foregoing N otice w as s erved o n T he S tate o f Texas through counsel of record, Mr. Ed Jones , by email to ejones @angelinacounty.net.

_________________________ Da vid Mark Davis II ACCEPTED 12-15-00082-CR TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS

TYLER, TEXAS 11/13/2015 3:17:39 PM

Pam Estes CLERK
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


L\_2017113DE.01006301.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 29.4.2017 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 113/63 |

---

Berichtigung der Leitlinie der Europäischen Zentralbank vom 30. Juni 2011 zur Änderung der Leitlinie EZB/2008/8 über die Datenerhebung bezüglich des Euro und den Betrieb des Bargeldinformationssystems 2 (CIS 2) (EZB/2011/9)

(
[Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 217 vom 23. August 2011](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOL_2011_217_R_TOC)
)

Auf Seite 12, Nummer 3.2, zweite Spalte:

Anstatt:

„Anzahl der Banknoten, die von anderen Bargeldakteuren betriebenen Banknotenbearbeitungsgeräten“

muss es heißen:

„Anzahl der Banknoten, die von anderen Bargeldakteuren betriebenen Banknotenbearbeitungsgeräten bearbeitet wurden“.

Seite 21, Nummer 3.2, zweite Spalte:

Anstatt:

„Anzahl der von anderen Bargeldakteuren betriebenen Banknotenbearbeitungsgeräten“

muss es heißen:

„Anzahl der Banknoten, die von anderen Bargeldakteuren betriebenen Banknotenbearbeitungsgeräten bearbeitet wurden“.

Seite 30:

Anstatt:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| „5.2. | Dalich einzelner Banknotentransfers zwischen (künftigen) NZBen (des Eurosystems) (Soll-Überprüfung)“ |

muss es heißen:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| „5.2. | Datenabstimmung bezüglich einzelner Banknotentransfers zwischen (künftigen) NZBen (des Eurosystems) (Soll-Überprüfung)“. |

---
#### Robert YAMADA v. STATE.

No. 20393.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 26, 1939.

C. W. Falvey, of Lufkin, for appellant.

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

KRUEGER, Judge.

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

The appellant has filed an affidavit to dismiss this appeal, duly certified as required by law. The motion is granted as prayed for and 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.
#### HARRIS v. LONE STAR MOTOR CO. et al.

No. 3556.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. El Paso.

May 13, 1937.

Rehearing Denied June 3, 1937.

John T. Hill, of El Paso, for appellant.

J. Walker Morrow, of El Paso, for ap-pellees.

HIGGINS, Justice.

Appellant brought this suit against the appellees, Lone Star Motor Company and Claude Smith, to recover damages for the alleged wrongful conversion of an automobile. In her petition the plaintiff set up that she and Smith had been husband and wife, and prior to their divorce Smith had given the automobile to her.

By special answer, the Lone Star Motor Company set up it had previously sold the automobile to Smith, and a chattel mortgage executed in its favor by Smith to secure the payment of. unpaid purchase money. It set up default in the payment of the deferred purchase-money payments; that it had taken possession of the car, and sold the same in satisfaction of the debt under power conferred by the mortgage.

Smith, by special answer, set up he had purchased the car from his codefendant after the foreclosure proceedings referred to in the answer of his codefendant.

In response to special issues, the jury found:

1. Claude Smith gave the automobile to plaintiff prior to July 7, 1932.

2. Upon that date the cash market value of the automobile was $300.

3. Plaintiff did not have possession of the automobile at any time subsequent to July 7, 1932.

4. She was not in control of said automobile at any time subsequent to said date.

Judgment was rendered in favor of the defendants.

'The record contains no statement of facts, and in the absence thereof the var*344ious points presented by appellant present no error.

The first assignment is the court erred in rendering judgment contrary to the verdict. In the absence of a statement of facts, it must be assumed the undisputed evidence shows that the special defense pleaded by the defendants was conclusively established, and judgment non obstante properly rendered. It is true, there are no findings by the jury upon the special defenses pleaded by the defendants, but in the absence of a statement of facts, it must be assumed the undisputed evidence established such defenses, and, if so, it was not necessary to submit the same to the jury. It is neither necessary nor proper to submit issues established by undisputed evidence.

In this situation, none of the assignments of error presented by the appellant present any error, and the judgment must be affirmed.

It is so ordered.
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            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 Your Digital Memories, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2007, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Alan Sacks, Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

     (1)  the Report 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 the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of the
          operation of the Company.


                                /s/ Alan Sacks
                                -------------------------------------
                                Alan Sacks
                                Principal Financial Officer
                                October 31, 2007

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to ss.906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by Registrant for the purposes of
ss.18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. This certification
shall not be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act
of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether
made before or after the date of this Report), irrespective of any general
incorporation language contained in such filing.

A signed original of this written statement required by ss.906 has been provided
to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                                   PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Nitin Karnik, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge,
Tres Estrellas Enterprises' Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for the fiscal
quarter ended March 31, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information
contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A fairly presents in all
material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Tres
Estrellas Enterprises, Inc.

Date: May 19, 2009                            By: /s/ Nitin Karnik
                                                 -------------------------------
                                              Name:  Nitin Karnik
                                              Title: Chief Executive Officer
NO. 07-06-0479-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL B

OCTOBER 30, 2008

______________________________

JUAN A. SOLIS, APPELLANT

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

_________________________________

FROM THE 242ND DISTRICT COURT OF HALE COUNTY;

NO. B16671-0602; HON. ED SELF, PRESIDING

_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.

	ON MOTION TO DISMISS

	Pending before the Court is appellant’s motion to dismiss his appeal.  Appellant and his attorney have both signed the motion.  Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a).  No decision of this Court having been delivered to date, we grant the motion.  Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.  No motion for rehearing will be entertained and our mandate will issue forthwith.

	Per Curiam

Do not publish.
#                                                     Alex  Miloshevsky                                            

### 

## Contact

miloshevskya@ornl.gov

## Publications

##   Foundry-fabricated silicon source of broadband polarization entanglement

November, 2023

##   Two-mode squeezing over deployed fiber coexisting with conventional communications

August, 2023

##   Two-mode squeezing over deployed fiber coexisting with conventional communications

July, 2023

##   Space-based quantum networking in the presence of a nuclear disturbed environment

May, 2023

##   Effects of a nuclear-disturbed environment on electromagnetic wave propagation through the atmosphere...

January, 2023

### Pagination

-                Current page            1 
-                Page            2 
-                Page            3 
-  Next page›› 
-  Last pageLast » 

View All
# EUR-Lex - 32011M6049 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 32011M6049

**Commission Decision of 02/02/2011 declaring a concentration to be compatible with the common market (Case No COMP/M.6049 - COMPAGNIE DE SAINT-GOBAIN / TRAKYA / JV) according to Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (Only the English text is authentic) **

*

*

|EUROPEAN COMMISSION |

Brussels , 2.2.2011

SG-Greffe(2011) D/1729/1730

C(2011) 710 final

PUBLIC VERSION

MERGER PROCEDURE ARTICLE 6(1)(b) DECISION

SIMPLIFIED PROCEDURE

To the notifying parties

Dear Madam(s) and/or Sir(s),

Subject: Case No COMP/M.6049 - COMPAGNIE DE SAINT-GOBAIN/ TRAKYA/ JV Notification of 22/12/2010 pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [1] Publication in the Official Journal of the European Union No C 4, 07/01/2011, p.5

1. On 22/12/2010, the European Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of the Merger Regulation by which the undertaking Saint-Gobain Glass France, a subsidiary of Compagnie de Saint-Gobain S.A. ("Saint-Gobain", France) and Traky Cam Sanayii A.S. ("Trakya", Turkey) belonging to the Sisecam group acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of the undertaking Trakya Glass Rus ZAO ("JV", Russia) by way of purchase of shares in a newly created company constituting a joint venture.

2. The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

- Saint-Gobain is mainly engaged in the production and sale of glass, ceramics, plastics and building materials. It is also active in the distribution of building materials in several EEA-countries,

- Trakya activities encompass mainly the production and sale of glass, glassware, glass packaging and chemicals,

- The JV will be active in the manufacture and sale of glass in Russia.

3. After examination of the notification, the European Commission has concluded that the notified operation falls within the scope of the Merger Regulation and of paragraph 5(a) of the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [2] .

4. For the reasons set out in the Notice on a simplified procedure, the European Commission has decided not to oppose the notified operation and to declare it compatible with the internal market and with the EEA Agreement. This decision is adopted in application of Article 6(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation.

For the Commission (signed) Alexander ITALIANER Director General

[1]OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 ("the Merger Regulation"). With effect from 1 December 2009, the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union ("TFEU") has introduced certain changes, such as the replacement of "Community" by "Union" and "common market" by "internal market". The terminology of the TFEU will be used throughout this decision.

[2] OJ C 56, 5.3.2005, p. 32.
# EUR-Lex - 32011M6253 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 32011M6253

**Commission Decision of 12/07/2011 declaring a concentration to be compatible with the common market (Case No COMP/M.6253 - TALIS INTERNATIONAL HOLDING / RAPHAEL VALVES INDUSTRIES) according to Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (Only the English text is authentic) **

*

*

|EUROPEAN COMMISSION |

Brussels , 12.07.2011

C(2011) 5166

PUBLIC VERSION

SIMPLIFIED MERGER PROCEDURE

To the notifying party: | |

Dear Madam(s) and/or Sir(s),

Subject: Case No COMP/M.6253 - TALIS INTERNATIONAL HOLDING/ RAPHAEL VALVES INDUSTRIES Commission decision pursuant to Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [1]

1. On 14 June 2011, the European Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 by which the undertaking Talis International Holding GmbH (Germany), holding company of the undertaking comprising the Talis Group ("Talis"), acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of Raphael Valves Industries (1975) ("Raphael", Israel), by way of purchase of shares [2] .

2. The business activities of the undertakings concerned are, for both Talis and Raphael, the development, manufacturing and distribution of valves and other products and equipment for the water industry, including for water production, transmission, distribution and sewage.

3. After examination of the notification, the European Commission has concluded that the notified operation falls within the scope of the Merger Regulation and of paragraph 5 (b) of the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [3] .

4. For the reasons set out in the Notice on a simplified procedure, the European Commission has decided not to oppose the notified operation and to declare it compatible with the internal market and with the EEA Agreement. This decision is adopted in application of Article 6(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation.

For the Commission (Signed) Alexander ITALIANER Director General

[1]OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 ("the Merger Regulation"). With effect from 1 December 2009, the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union ("TFEU") has introduced certain changes, such as the replacement of "Community" by "Union" and "common market" by "internal market". The terminology of the TFEU will be used throughout this decision.

[2] Publication in the Official Journal of the European Union No C 181, 22.06.2011, p.40

[3] OJ C 56, 5.3.2005, p. 32.
Attachment 4: Receipt of Eligibility Verification Documents 

[Insert Date] 

[Insert Employee Name and Address] 

We have reviewed the documents you submitted in response to our request to verify that the 

person(s) listed below are eligible for coverage under your Federal Employees Health Benefits 

Program enrollment. 

We have determined that the documents you submitted verify eligibility for the family 

member(s) listed. 

1. [Insert Name of Verified Family Member]

Thank you for your prompt attention to our request. A copy of this letter will be provided to your 

employing office to include in your permanent official personnel file. However, please retain a 

copy of this letter for your records. 

[Signature] 

cc: Employing Office/Tribal Employer
#### BROOKS v. STATE.

No. 20169.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 15, 1939.

Philip S. Kouri, of Wichita Falls, for appellant.-

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

HAWKINS, Judge.

Conviction is for driving while drunk a motor vehicle upon the highway, punishment being five days'in jail and a fine of one hundred dollars.

The indictment charges the offense. The record contains neither statement of facts nor bills of exception. Nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.
#### HEARNE v. STATE.

No. 16199.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 3, 1934.

Davis, Avery & Wallace, of Center, for appellant.

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

LATTIMORE, Judge.

Conviction for assault to murder; punishment, two years in the penitentiary.

We see no need for setting out the facts at any length. All parties to the controversy are negroes. The state claimed a cold-blooded attempt at assassination. The defense was that extending over a period of two years and at various times the injured party Brown had threatened appellant, and on various occasions had made efforts to injure him. Appellant testified that following an attempted assault upon him on Saturday night, on the following Tuesday night he passed a place where Brown was, that Brown came out of a house and started toward him, using a, vile epithet and threatening then to kill him. He said as Brown advanced upon him he pulled his pistol and shot him.

The court’s charge was excepted to for its failure to submit the law of self-defense based on threats. Appellant affirmatively testified to various threats made by Brown to kill him, and that on the Saturday night before the shooting Brown had chased him through a crowd with a drawn knife. As above stated, he said that on the night in question Brown came out of Tete Williams’ house, called to him and asked him where he was going, called him a S’ — —n of a b-, said he was going to kill him, and advanced upon him, and that he drew his pistol and shot Brown to stop him.

The trial court gave a full and commendable charge on self-defense, save that he failed to charge on such defense when based on threats, even after the omission was called to his attention by exception. We cannot say that the act of Brown in advancing on appellant was not the overt act evidencing an intention to execute previous threats; nor that the words and acts of Brown at the time might not have been regarded by the jury as 'sufficient proof of the justification alluded to in article 1258, P. C., giving to any one the right under certain circumstances to justify self-defense upon previous threats followed by some act or demonstration of the party having made such threats. Authorities are many. Tillery v. State, 24 Tex. App. 251, 5 S. W. 842, 5 Am. St. Rep. 882; Chapman v. State, 42 Tex. Cr. R. 138, 57 S. W. 965; Fielding v. State, 48 Tex. Cr. R. 334, 87 S. W. 1044; Carden v. State, 59 Tex. Cr. R. 501, 129 S. W. 362; Ware v. State, 68 Tex. Cr. R. 376, 152 S. W. 1074; Rutland v. State, 88 Tex. Cr. R. 114, 224 S. W. 1088; Collins v. State, 97 Tex. Cr. R. 31, 259 S. W. 941; Emmons v. State, 100 Tex. Cr. R. 264, 273 S. W. 253; Pryor v. State, 120 Tex. Cr. R. 418, 48 S.W.(2d) 1003. Other authorities are collated under section 20S3 of Mr. Branch’s Annotated P. C. See, also, Lofton Wall v. State, 110 Tex. Cr. R. 116, 7 S.W.(2d) 958, holding the law of such self-defense to be applicable even in assault to murder cases. We do not think there is anything in appellant’s other exception.

For the error mentioned, the judgment will be reversed and the cause remanded.