alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN. TEXAS 78711

May 6, 1975 The Honorable A. R. Schwartz Chairman Opinion No. H- 601 Senate Committee on Jurisprudence, State Capitol Austin, Texas 78711 Re: Whether the Department of Public Safety may elicit information as to aperson’s race and sex on the Driver’s Confidential Accident Report. Dear Senator Schwartz:

You have requested our opinion regarding the authority ofthe Department ofPublic Safety to elicit information as to aperson’s race and sex on the Driver’s Confidential Accident Report.

The Driver’s Confidential Accident Report is aform which must be completed by every person involved in a traffic accident and forwarded to the Department ofPublic Safety. On the form are spaces requesting the individual to note h!ssex and race. You state that the Department of Public Safety does not follow up the omission of this particular information ona submitted report. Furthermore, the report is not available for inspection or copying by the public. V. T. C.S., art. 6701d, $47.

According to Colonel Speir, Director ofthe Texas Department of Public Safety, the purpose ofthe data obtained on the Report is “to provide sufficient information so that all reports ofaparticular accident may be matched into one case file and to provide basic statistical data. ” He states that items such as race and sex, when “correlated with other factors such as geographical location, type ofaccident and contributi,ng factors, aid the traffic safety program in providing a means oftailoring the program to specific groups where applicable. ”

We have discovered **no statute**  which would preclude the Department of Public Safety from requesting this information, and we presume therefore that the only relevant inquiry is whether its inclusion onthe Driver’s Confidential Accident Report may be deemed state action which violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
p. 2668The Honorable A. R. Schwartz page 2 (H-601)

However, the eliciting ofthis information does not result in action against any group or individual. Whatever action taken is positive and remedial. No burden is imposed onany racial or sexual class. See Wright v. City of Brighton, Alabama, 441 F-.2d 447, 450 (5th Cir., 1971), cert denied, 404 U.S. 915 (1971). The state is not denied the right to treat different classes ofpersons in different ways, but merely denied the authority to base its classification on criteria wholly unrelated to the objective of the state action. Reed V. Reed, 404 U.S. 71, 75-76 (1971). Itis therefore our opinion that the Department of Public Safety is not prohibited from eliciting information as to aperson’s race and sex on the Driver’s Confidential Accident Report. And see Attorney General Opinion H-118 (1973). SUMMARY The Department ofPublic Safety is not prohibited from eliciting information as to aperson’s race and sex onthe Driver’s Confidential Accident Report. Very truly yours, 

# c/ Attorney General of Texas PPROVED: \

, First Assistant

C. ROBERT HEATH, Chairman Opinion Committee

po 2669
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 208 (Monday, October 28, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 85547-85548]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-24979]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious 
Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; NIAID Clinical Trial Implementation 
Cooperative Agreement (U01 Clinical Trial Required).
    Date: November 19, 2024.
    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 
National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3G11, 
Rockville, MD 20892 (Video Assisted Meeting).
    Contact Person: Barry J. Margulies, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural 
Activities,

[[Page 85548]]

National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National 
Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3G11, Rockville, MD 
20892, (301) 761-7956, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c0a2a1b2b2b9eeada1b2a7b5aca9a5b380aea9a8eea7afb6"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="02606370707b2c6f637065776e6b6771426c6b6a2c656d74">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, 
Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, 
Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes 
of Health, HHS)

    Dated: October 22, 2024.
Lauren A. Fleck,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2024-24979 Filed 10-25-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11


                        Alabama National BanCorporation
                 Computation of Earnings Per Share (Unaudited)
                   (In thousands, except per share amounts)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                        Per Share
                                                            Income         Shares         Amount
                                                            ------         ------         ------
<S>                                                         <C>            <C>          <C>
THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 2000
Basic EPS net income....................................    $ 5,658        11,066        $   0.51
                                                                                         ========
Effect of dilutive securities options...................          -           129
                                                            -------        ------
Diluted EPS.............................................    $ 5,658        11,195        $   0.51
                                                            =======        ======        ========

THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1999
Basic EPS net income....................................    $ 5,019        11,022        $   0.46
                                                                                         ========
Effect of dilutive securities options...................          -           166
                                                            -------        ------
Diluted EPS.............................................    $  5,019       11,188        $   0.45
                                                            ========       ======        ========
</TABLE>
#### H. B. Nelson, Appellant, v. C. L. Peterson, Appellee.

IBill of Exceptions: identification of evidence.

*Appeal from Monroe District Court.*— Hon. Dell Stuart, Judge.

Friday, February 6, 1891.

*Haskell & Creen*and *Seevers & Seevers,*for appellant.

*Ed. Morrison, H. L. Daslviel*and *J. C. Mabry,*for appellee.

Given, J.

The appellee denies that the appellant’s abstract is ■correct, and files an abstract setting out the bill of exceptions. As the appellant has not filed any affirmance of his abstract, the appellee’s must be accepted as to what is set out therein. The bill of exceptions set out recites that the evidence “was taken down by the official shorthand reporter of said court, and in the form of depositions, and the said notes of said reporter were duly filed on the said fifteenth 'day of October, 1889, in the clerk’s office of said court and made of record therein, and a true and correct transcript of said notes and evidence, including the documentary evidence, and exhibits made by said official reporter, is as follows : [ Here the clerk will insert a complete and true transcript of all the evidence offered and introduced in the trial hereof.]” -The appellee moves to strike from the files and the record all evidence in the case, for the reason that it is not preserved in, or identified by, any proper bill of exceptions. This motion must be sustained. The bill of exceptions does not identify the evidence “ by any unmistakable reference thereto.” If it may be said that it does identify the reporter’s notes by the fact and date of filing, yet there is no identification whatever of the documentary evidence, which is shown to have been introduced. See section 2834, Code, and notes. As the entire assignment of errors rests upon the evidence, they cannot be considered in the absence of the evidence, and the judgment must, therefore, be affirmed.
Exhibit
10.4


 


	
   

  	
  July 27, 2010

  



 


Mr. Marc A. Strassler


Executive Vice President


General Counsel and Secretary


Rite Aid Corporation


30 Hunter Lane


Camp Hill, PA  17011


 


RE:                              Agreement dated as of March 9, 2009 (the “Agreement”)
by and between Rite Aid Corporation (the “Company”) and Marc A. Strassler (the “Executive”)


 


Dear
Marc:


 


On June 21,
2010, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company
approved changes to the above referenced Agreement that:  (i) delete the term “$135,000” in the first
sentence of Section 4.6 of the Agreement and replace it with the phrase “$67,000
per year”; and (ii) delete the phrase “for a period of up to thirty-six
(36) months from the Effective Date” in the first sentence of Section 4.6
of the Agreement.  The balance of Section 4.6
remains unchanged.


 


If you are
in agreement with these two changes in the above paragraph, please sign both
copies of this letter below where indicated, returning one copy to me and
retaining one copy for your records.


 


	
   

  	
   

  	
  Sincerely,

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Rite Aid Corporation

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/ FRANK G. VITRANO

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  Frank G. Vitrano

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  Sr. Exec. Vice President,
  CFO & CAO

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Agreed:

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  /s/ MARC A. STRASSLER

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Marc A. Strassler

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  July 27, 2010
**TKP** IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 2 1
- 0071 PATRICK O. NEISS,

Petitioner and Appellant,
v. STATE OF MONTANA,

Respondent and Appellee.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 7 - day extension of time, and good cause appearing therefor, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellee is granted an extension of time to and including July 2 9 , 202 1 , within which to prepare, serve, and file the State’s response .

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

July 19 2021

07/19/2021

Case Number: DA 21-0071
Specimen Common Stock certificate



 Exhibit 4.1 
 

 







 COMVERSE TECHNOLOGY, INC. 

THE CORPORATION WILL FURNISH WITHOUT CHARGE TO EACH STOCKHOLDER WHO SO REQUESTS THE POWERS, DESIGNATIONS, PREFERENCES AND RELATIVE,
PARTICIPATING, OPTIONAL OR OTHER SPECIAL RIGHTS OF EACH CLASS OF STOCK OR SERIES THEREOF AND THE QUALIFICATIONS, LIMITATIONS OR RESTRICTIONS OF SUCH PREFERENCES AND/OR RIGHTS. ANY SUCH REQUESTS SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO THE SECRETARY OF THE
CORPORATION. 
 The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of this certificate, shall be construed as
though they were written out in full according to applicable laws or reputations. 
  

															
	TEN COM	    	–	    	as tenants in common	 	UNIF GIFT MIN ACT	  	  
	  	Custodian	  	  

		    		    		 		  	(Cust)	  		  	(Minor)
	TEN ENT	    	–	    	as tenants by the entireties	 		  	under Uniform Gifts to Minors
								
	JT TEN	    	–	    	as joint tenants with right of survivorship and not as tenants in common	 		  		 		  		  	
		    		    	 		  	Act	 	 	  	
		    		    	 		  		 	(State)	  	

 Additional abbreviations may also be used though not in
the above list. 
  

					
	For value received,  	 		 	hereby sells, assigns and transfers unto

  

					
	 PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER

IDENTIFYING NUMBER OR ASSIGNEE
	  		 	
	 		
	 	  	 	 	
		
	 	 	
	Please print or typewrite name and address including postal zip code of assignee	 	
		
	 	 	
		
	 	 	
		
	 	 	Shares
	of the common stock represented by the within Certificate, together with all right, title and interest therein, and do hereby irrevocably constitute and
appoint
	
	 
	Attorney to transfer the said stock on the books of the within-named Corporation with full power of substitution in the
premises.

  

					
	 Dated,
	  	                    	 	
			
		  		 	 
		  		 	 NOTICE. The signature to this assignment must correspond with the name as written upon the face of the Certificate, in every particular, without
alteration or enlargement, or any change whatever.

			
		  		 	Signature Guaranteed:
			
		  		 	 
	
	IMPORTANT: SIGNATURE(S) MUST BE GUARANTEED BY A FIRM WHICH IS A MEMBER OF A REGISTERED NATIONAL STOCK EXCHANGE, A COMMERCIAL BANK OR TRUST COMPANY, OR A MEMBER OF THE
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SECURITIES DEALERS, INC.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                        Consent of Independent Auditors

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Forms S-8 Nos. 333-40446 and 333-40450) pertaining to the Interliant, Inc. 1998
Stock Option and Employee Stock Purchase plans and (Forms S-3 Nos. 333-37156 and
333-38228) pertaining to the convertible subordinated notes and related
registration rights of Interliant, Inc. of our report dated February 14, 2002
(except for Note 16 and the fifth and sixth paragraphs of Note 1, as to which
the date is April 16, 2002) with respect to the consolidated financial
statements and schedule of Interliant, Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form
10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2001.

                                                /s/ Ernst & Young LLP
Stamford, Connecticut
April 16, 2002
**Exhibit 32(d)**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE**

**SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of Gulf Power Company for the year ended December 31, 2008, we, the undersigned, 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 our individual knowledge and belief, that:

 

| (1)    | such Annual Report on Form 10-K of Gulf Power Company for the year ended December 31, 2008, which this statement accompanies, 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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Gulf Power Company for the year ended December 31, 2008, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Gulf Power Company. |

 

 

 

|   | /s/Susan N. Story

Susan N. Story

President and Chief Executive Officer

 

 

 

 

  |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | /s/Philip C. Raymond

Philip C. Raymond

Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

                       |

 

 

Date:  February 25, 2009
EXHIBIT 11 - STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS

                 THE BARBERS, HAIRSTYLING FOR MEN & WOMEN, INC.
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                        Three Months Ended          Nine Months Ended
                                                      June 26,      June 27,      June 26,      June 27,
                                                       1997          1996          1997          1996
                                                    ---------     ---------     ---------     ---------
<S>                                                 <C>           <C>           <C>           <C>      
EARNINGS PER SHARE:
Average shares outstanding                          2,574,829     2,552,210     2,571,850     2,544,929

Net effect of dilutive stock options
   and warrants -- based on the treasury
   stocK method using average market
   price                                              245,259       206,375       239,400       190,529
                                                    ---------     ---------     ---------     ---------
Total                                               2,820,088     2,758,585     2,811,250     2,735,458
                                                    =========     =========     =========     =========

Net income                                           $340,259      $285,466      $890,169      $723,745
                                                    =========     =========     =========     =========


Earnings per share -- primary and fully diluted         $0.12         $0.10         $0.32         $0.26
                                                    =========     =========     =========     =========
</TABLE>
1

Hutson, Nick

From: Frey, Nathan J. <Nathan_J._Frey@omb.eop.gov>

Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2015 5:10 PM

To: Hutson, Nick; Fruh, Steve; Culligan, Kevin

Cc: Elman, Barry; Szabo, Aaron

Subject: Summary of Interagency Comments Under EO 12866 and 13563 -- Standards of 

Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions From New, Modified, and Reconstructed 

Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units

Attachments: SummaryofInteragencyCommentsUnderEO 12866_13563_111(b) New-Mods 2060-AQ91 

Final_supplemental responses7_16.docx

Attached please find a summary of interagency comments under EO 12866 and 13563 in response to the latest draft of 

the EPA final rule, Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions From New, Modified, and Reconstructed 

Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units. 

We suggest arranging a call with EPA and interagency reviewers next week to address issues raised by these comments. 

Thanks and please let me know if you have any questions. 

Nathan
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1102 KAH 12-01771 PRESENT: FAHEY, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, SCONIERS, AND WHALEN, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK EX REL. WILLIE WILLIAMS, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ROBERT A. KIRKPATRICK, SUPERINTENDENT, WENDE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, AND ANDREA W. EVANS, CHAIRWOMAN, NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF PAROLE, RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS.

ALAN BIRNHOLZ, EAST AMHERST, FOR PETITIONER-APPELLANT.

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (OWEN DEMUTH OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS.

Appeal from a judgment (denominated memorandum and order) of the Supreme Court, Erie County (John L. Michalski, A.J.), dated June 12, 2012 in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78. The judgment denied the petition.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this habeas corpus proceeding alleging that he is entitled to immediate release from prison pursuant to Executive Law former § 259-j (3-a), which has since been replaced by Correction Law § 205 (4). According to petitioner, his sentence of 20 years to life should be terminated because, from 1994 to 1997, he had “three years of unrevoked presumptive release or parole” (§ 205 [4]). We reject that contention. As a threshold matter, we note that section 205 (4) applies only to prisoners serving sentences for qualifying drug felonies, and defendant is serving a sentence for attempted murder in the second degree. In any event, petitioner is not entitled to relief under the statute because he violated parole several times after his three years of unrevoked release and before the effective date of Executive Law § 259-j (3-a) ( see Matter of Rosario v New York State Div. of Parole , 84 AD3d 1665, 1666; Matter of Murphy v Ewald , 77 AD3d 778, 779, lv denied 16 NY3d 701).
To the extent that the petition further alleged that petitioner was deprived of a final revocation hearing when his parole was revoked in 2009 upon his conviction of a new drug felony, we conclude that Supreme Court properly converted the habeas corpus petition to a CPLR article 78 petition and then denied the petition. “Upon petitioner’s-2- 1102 KAH 12-01771
conviction of a felony committed while under parole supervision, petitioner’s parole was revoked by operation of law” ( People ex rel. Stevenson v Beaver , 309 AD2d 1171, 1172, lv denied 1 NY3d 506). Thus, contrary to petitioner’s contention, a parole revocation hearing was not required ( see Executive Law § 259-i [3] [d] [iii]; People ex rel. Harris v Sullivan , 74 NY2d 305, 308; People ex rel. Ward v Russi , 219 AD2d 862, 862, lv denied 87 NY2d 803).

Entered: November 8, 2013 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
EXHIBIT 10(G)
                                                                           
                            FIRST AMENDMENT TO
                       AIRBORNE FREIGHT CORPORATION
                         DIRECTOR STOCK BONUS PLAN
                                     
     Airborne Freight Corporation, a Delaware corporation, hereby amends
the terms of the Airborne Freight Corporation Director Stock Bonus Plan
(the "Plan") as follows:
     
     Share Awards.  Section 4 of the Plan is hereby amended by deleting
"$3,000" after "(a)" in line 7 and substituting therefor "$6,000".
     
     Except as otherwise set forth herein, all terms of the Plan shall
remain in full force and effect.
     
     This first amendment shall be effective this 3rd day of February,
1998.
     
                                   AIRBORNE FREIGHT CORPORATION
     
                                   By /s/ Robert S. Cline
                                   ----------------------
                                   Robert S. Cline
                                   Chairman and Chief Executive Officer