alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
POWER OF ATTORNEY

KNOWN ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned hereby constitutes and appoints each of Robert K. Kretzman and Michael T. Sheehan or any of them, each acting alone, his true and lawful attorney-in-fact and agent, with full power of substitution, for him and his name, place and stead, in any and all capacities, in connection with the REVLON CONSUMER PRODUCTS CORPORATION (the Corporation) Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007 (the Form 10-K) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, to sign the Form 10-K in the name and on behalf of the Corporation or on behalf of the undersigned as a director or officer of the Corporation, and any amendments to the Form 10-K and any instrument, contract, document or other writing, of or in connection with the Form 10-K
or amendments thereto, and to file the same, with all exhibits thereto, and other documents in connection therewith, including this power of attorney, with the Securities and Exchange Commission and any applicable securities exchange or securities self-regulatory body, granting unto said attorneys-in-fact and agents, each acting alone, full power and authority to do and perform each and every act and thing requisite and necessary to be done in and about the premises, as fully to all intents and purposes as he might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that said attorneys-in-fact and agents, each acting alone, or his substitute or substitutes, may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has signed these presents this 4th day of March, 2008.



/S/ EDWARD J. LANDAUEDWARD J. LANDAU






---
<PAGE>   1
                                                                     EXHIBIT 11
                                                                     ----------

                      EXHIBIT 11* TO REPORT ON FORM 10-Q

                      TELXON CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

                COMPUTATION OF FULLY DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE

                (Dollars in thousands except per share amounts)

                                 (Unaudited)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                Three Months Ended      Nine Months Ended
                                                   December 31,             December 31,
                                                ------------------      -----------------
                                                 1995        1994        1995       1994
                                                ------      ------      ------     ------
<S>                                             <C>          <C>        <C>        <C>
Net income applicable to                    
    common shares                               $ 4,205      $ 2,464    $ 9,245    $ 5,356
                                                =======      =======    =======    =======
                                            
Weighted average common shares              
    outstanding for the period                   16,302       15,620     16,301     15,788
                                            
Increase in weighted average from:          
           Dilutive effect of stock         
                  options                             1            0         62          0
                                                 ------      -------    -------    -------
                                            
Weighted average common shares              
    assuming issuance of the above          
    securities                                   16,303       15,620     16,363     15,788                  
                                                =======      =======    =======    =======
                                            
Net income per common share:                
           On the weighted average          
              common shares outstand-       
              ing for the year                  $   .26      $   .16    $   .57    $   .34
                                            
           Assuming issuance of shares      
              for dilutive stock            
              options**                         $   .26      $   .16    $   .57    $   .34
</TABLE>                                    

 *       Numbered in accordance with Item 601 of Regulation S-K.

**       This calculation is submitted in accordance with Regulation S-K Item
         601(b)(1) although not required for income statement presentation
         because it results in dilution of less than three percent.  The
         Company's 7 1/2% Convertible Subordinated Debentures Due 2012 and
         Convertible Subordinated Notes due 2003 were omitted from the fully
         diluted calculation due to their antidilutive effect.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 262 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 262

To allow tax credits to State and local governments for paid sick leave 
                   and paid family and medical leave.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            February 4, 2021

 Ms. Smith (for herself, Ms. Klobuchar, and Mr. Blumenthal) introduced 
the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee 
                               on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To allow tax credits to State and local governments for paid sick leave 
                   and paid family and medical leave.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Supporting State and Local Leaders 
Act''.

SEC. 2. STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ALLOWED TAX CREDITS FOR PAID SICK 
              AND PAID FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE.

    (a) In General.--Sections 7001(e)(4) and 7003(e)(4) of the Families 
First Coronavirus Response Act are each amended by striking ``, the 
government of any State or political subdivision thereof, or any agency 
or instrumentality of any of the foregoing'' and inserting ``or any 
agency or instrumentality of the United States''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall take 
effect as if included in the provisions of the Families First 
Coronavirus Response Act to which they relate.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2015228EN.01000101.xml

| 13.7.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 228/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.7.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 228/1

---

Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

Official Journal of the European Union

(2015/C 228/01)

Last publication

Last publication

OJ C 221, 6.7.2015

Past publications

Past publications

OJ C 213, 29.6.2015

OJ C 205, 22.6.2015

OJ C 198, 15.6.2015

OJ C 190, 8.6.2015

OJ C 178, 1.6.2015

OJ C 171, 26.5.2015

These texts are available on:

EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

---
## NO. 12-08-00266-CR IN THE COUR T OF APP EALS TWELFTH COURT OF APP EALS D ISTR ICT

TYLER, TEXA S

TONY MARTIN CALER , § APPEAL F ROM THE 402ND APPELLANT V. § JUDICIAL DISTRI CT COURT OF TH E ST ATEOFTEX

AS, APP ELL EE § WO OD CO UN TY , T EXAS MEMORA NDUM OPIN ION Appellant Tony Martin Caler was c onvicted of failure to appea r. His sentenc e wa s imposed on April 23, 2008. That same day, Appellant, ac ting pro se, filed a notice of a

ppeal with the W ood Co un ty Di st ri ct Cle rk , s pe c if yin g th a t hewante d to app e a l to the Six th C ou rt of Ap pe a ls i n Texa rkana . On May 8, 2008, Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a notice of appea l on Appellant’s be ha lf in w hic h h e state d A pp e lla nt’ s d e sir e to a pp e a l th e tria l c ou rt 's jud gme nt t o th is c ou rt
. W oo d Co un ty, the c ou nty fr om w hic h th is a pp e a l origi nate d, lie s intw o d if fe re nt a pp e llate districts. T EX . G OV ' T C ODE A NN . § 22

. 2 0 1 (g ), (m ) (Vernon Supp.2008). Appe als from W ood County may be taken either t o the S ixth or t he Twelfth Court of Appea ls. Id . Because thereis no pr oc e du re fo r al loc a tin g ap pe a ls b e tw e e n th e se tw o c ou rt s, a n a pp e llant i s f

re e to e le c t e ith e r c ou rt
. See M il e s v . Fo r d M otor Co. , 9 14 S.W .2 d 1 35 , 1 38 (T e x. 19 95 ). Ju ri sd ic tio n li e s in the app e llate court whe re the appea l is first perfe cted. Id. Her e, in the first filed notice of app ea l , Appellant designated the court to which he sought to a pp e a l a s the Six th Cou rt of Ap pe a ls in Te xa rk a na . “ Th e ge ne ra l c omm on la w r ule in T e xa s is that ‘the c ourt in which su i t i s fi rst filed ac quires dominant jurisdiction to the exclusion of other coordinate courts.’” Id . ; Curt is v. Gibbs , 511 S.W.2d 263, 267 (Tex.1974)

. There fore , jurisdiction lies solely in the Sixt h Court of Appea ls. See Miles , 91 4 S.W .2 d a t 13 8; Curt is , 511 S.W.2d at 267.2

Because Appellant has alre ady appea led to the Sixth Court of Appea ls, that c ourt has do m i nant jurisdiction over this appea l. Appellant cannot also invoke t he jurisdiction of this court by filing a la te r n oti c e of

app e a l di re c te d to thi s c ou rt
. This is a criminal case, with one appellant, and in this particula r i nstance , the S tate has no ri gh t of app e a l. T he re fo re , w e c on c lud e that th e pr op e r r e me dy , rat her th an abatin g th e c a se in acc ordanc e with Miles , is to dism iss the appea l. See C a p e h a r t v . Sta te , 257 S.W.3d 814, 815-16 (Tex. App.–Texa

rkana 2008, no pet.). Ac cordingly, we dis mis s this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 42.3(a).

BR IA N H OY LE Justice Opinion delivere d May 13, 2009. P a n e l co n siste d o

f W o rth e n , C .J ., G riffi th , J., a n d H o y le , j

.

(DO N OT PUBLISH)
# CA2015271EN.01000101.xml

| 18.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CA 271/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CA 271/1

---

Corrigendum to notice of open competitions

Conference interpreters (AD 5/AD 7)

EPSO/AD/311/15 — Czech-language (CS)

EPSO/AD/312/15 — Croatian-language (HR)

EPSO/AD/313/15 — Lithuanian-language (LT)

EPSO/AD/314/15 — Maltese-language (MT)

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 224 A of 9 July 2015
  )

Official Journal of the European Union C 224 A of 9 July 2015

(2015/C 271 A/01)

On page 1:

for:

for:

‘
  Deadline for registration: 11 August 2015 at 12.00 (midday), Brussels time
  ’,

read:

read:

‘
  Deadline for registration: 18 August 2015 at 12.00 (midday), Brussels time
  ’;

on page 5:

for:

for:

‘WHEN AND WHERE CAN I APPLY?

Apply online on the EPSO website http://jobs.eu-careers.eu by:

11 August 2015 at 12.00 (midday), Brussels time.’,

read:

read:

‘WHEN AND WHERE CAN I APPLY?

Apply online on the EPSO website http://jobs.eu-careers.eu by:

18 August 2015 at 12.00 (midday), Brussels time.’.

---
Exhibit
      32.1





GVI
      SECURITY SOLUTIONS, INC.


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 Annual Report of GVI Security Solutions, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2007 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Joseph
      Restivo, Chief 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:





(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 result of operations of the
                Company.





March
                24, 2008
            
            /s/
                Joseph RestivoJoseph
                RestivoChief
                Financial Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-40556

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JORGE ALBERTO AVALOS,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:15-CR-767-1

Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jorge Alberto 

Avalos has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance 

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 

F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Avalos has not filed a response. We have reviewed 

counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We 

concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 23, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-40556 Document: 00513772079 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/23/2016
No. 16-40556

2

issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw 

is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the 

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 16-40556 Document: 00513772079 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/23/2016
#### Knoll vs. Harvey.

A court should not decree a specific performance of a parol contract for the conveyance of land, even where there is a preponderance of testimony in favor of the existence of such a contract, if either the making of the same or its essential terms ai-e left in doubt.

The possession of the land by the plaintiff, and his making improvements thereon, will not take the case out of the Statute of Frauds, if such possession is not referable exclusively to the contract.

*JHamehard v. McDougal,*6 Wia., 167, followed.

APPEAL from the Circuit Court for *Winnebago*County.

The case is sufficiently stated by the court. The circuit court rendered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff; and the defendant appealed.

*G.*Goolhaugh, for appellant.

*Wheeler & Kimball,*for respondent.

*By the Court,*

Downer J.

This is an action brought to compel á specific performance of an alleged parol contract*for the conveyance of ten acres of land. The contract is denied by the answer of the defendant duly Verified. At the trial, the plaintiff and defendant both testified as witnesses, one to the making of the parol contract and the other denying that he ever made any such contract. There was also other testimony on the part of the plaintiff to prove the parol contract. His son and son-in-law both testified Mtehe making of the contract, or to facts tending to prove it. *^*

Qn the part of the defendant, Ransom Wilber testified: “ I have had conversation with the plaintiff in regard to this land ; the first conversation was about three years ago: a year ago last winter I heard the plaintiff say that he had got to have a piece of that land of defendant, so as to have a place to water his stock. He said he wanted ten acres, but did not know as he should be able to buy so much, but should try and buy five acres, even if he could not buy any more.” This appears to us inconsistent with the idea that he had made, several years *100before, a parol contract under which, he was then in possession of the land.

We are however inclined to the opinion that the preponderance of the testimony is in favor of the existence of the parol contract; but we do not think it entirely clear or free from doubt; and if the making of the contract or its essential terms are left in doubt, a specific performance ought not to be decreed. In this case the plaintiff was in possession of the land at the time the defendant purchased it of the United States, and had then made a part of the improvements on the same. His possession, therefore, and the acts done by him are not referable exclusively to the contract, as they ought to be in order *to*take the case out of the Statute of Frauds. On the whole we think to decree a specific performance in this case would be to encourage the very evils the statute of frauds was intended to prevent, and to overrule the decision of this court in the case of *Blanchard v.*McDougal, 6 Wis., 167.

The Judgment of the court below is reversed, with costs, and the circuit court directed to dismiss the complaint.
TS – 10KK7G, Physical and Chemical Properties Worksheet, Appearance 

Redacted
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7323

NORMAN ALAN KERR, 

Petitioner - Appellant, 

v. 

WARDEN K. ROGERS, 

Respondent - Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. 

(5:16-cv-00278-MGL) 

Submitted: November 22, 2016 Decided: November 28, 2016

Before DIAZ and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Norman Alan Kerr, Appellant Pro Se. Christopher Gibbs, OFFICE 

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2

PER CURIAM: 

Norman Alan Kerr, a federal prisoner, appeals the district 

court’s order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate 

judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) 

petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible 

error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the 

district court. Kerr v. Rogers, No. 5:16-cv-00278-MGL (D.S.C. 

Sept. 20, 2016). We deny Kerr’s motion for a certificate of 

appealability as unnecessary and deny his motion for a 

transcript at government expense. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED
p. 1 

# OAR Box 1828 Prepped byOllie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 142 ) M-K - (B ) -14 1 Docket Number: 

# A-83-2 7

Printed 11/12/2008 11:12:53 AM Sheet 142 of 325P. 2 r~ 

# I B ENERG

YANDENVIRONMENTA

L ANALYSIS , INC . II-K-CB)-14 1 Jun e 8 , 198 4

Mr . Rober t Shor t Economi c Analysi s Branc h U.S . Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y Mai l Drop-1 2 Researc hTriangl e Park , N C 2771 1 7 Subject : Contrac t No . 68-02-3564 , Wor k Assignmen t #1 #

Revise d Industria l Coa l Pric e Forecas t Dea r Robert : ICF ha s revise d the industria l coa l pric e forecast . Referenc e memorandu

mfro mC . Eber t (ICF ) t o J . Greenwal d (EPA) , "Revise d Indus
tria l Coa l Price s fo r Industria l NSP S Analyses, " May31 , 1984 . Th e attache d table s presen t revise d annualize d industria l coa l prices . Sincerely , / /<••»*_ Ti mHoga n TH/c e Enclosur e cc : Dr . A . Weh e

Economic s / Engineerin gREVISE DANNUALIZE DINDUSTRIAL COAL PRICES 0 (198 2 $/MMBtu ) P. 3

lbS0 2 /MMBt u Bituminou s

<0.8 0 0.80-1.0 8 1.08-1.6 7 1.67-2.5 0 2.50-3.3 3 3.3.3-5.0 0 >5.0 0 Subbituminou s

<0.8 0 0.80-1.0 8 1.08-1.6 7 1.67-2.5 0 Ne

w England

N.A . 3.6 9 3.6 4 3.5 8 3.3 9 3.1 0 3.2 0

—

- -
—
— Ne

w York / New Jerse y

N.A . 3.4 5 3.3 8 3.2 3 3.0 7 2.7 6 2.7 9

—
—
—

- - Middl e

Atlanti c

N.A . 3.0 8 2.8 8 2.7 9 2.7 0 2.3 7 2.3 4

—
—
—

- - Sout h

Atlanti c

N.A . 3.1 3 2.9 2 2.9 0 2.8 2 2.7 4 2.5 7

- -
—
—

- - Midwes t

N.A . 3.2 5 3.1 2 3.0 2 2.8 7 2.6 2 2.4 5

N.A . 3.3 1 3.2 7 3.2 4
Te npercen t discoun t rate . Fiftee nyea r perio dbeginnin g i n1987 . N.A . = no t available .REVISE DANNUALIZE DINDUSTRIAL COAL PRICES * (198 2 $/MMBtu ) P. 4

l bS0 2 /MMBt u Bituminou s

<0.8 0 0.80-1.0 8 1.08-1.6 7 1.67-2.5 0 2.50-3.3 3 3.33-5.0 0 >5.0 0 Subbituminou s

<0.8 0 0.80-1.0 8 1.08-1.6 7 1.67-2.5 0 Southwes t

N.A . 3.2 7 3.1 5 3.1 4 3.1 3 3.0 3 2.9 0

N.A . 3.4 2 3.3 2 3.2 6 Centra l

N.A . 3.0 8 3.0 2 2.9 8 2.8 6 2.5 7 2.4 2

N.A . 2.6 9 2.6 4 2.6 7 Nort h

Centra l

N.A . 1.9 5 1.8 2 1.8 3
—
— —

N.A . 1.3 7 1.3 6 1.2 6 Wes t

N.A . 2.7 4 2.7 6 2.7 2
—
— —

N.A . 2.7 8 2.6 9 2.6 0 Northwes t

N.A . 3.1 2 2.9 1 2.7 8

- -
— —

N.A . 2.6 1 2.5 5 2.0 5

a Te npercen t discoun t rate . Fiftee nyea r perio dbeginnin g in1987 . N.A . = no t available .P. 5

<*-

COMPARISON O F ANNUALIZE DINDUSTRIAL COA L PRICES 3 (198 2 $/MMBtu )

Midwes t Nort hCentra l l bS0 2 /MMBt uNew Ol dNew Ol d Bituminou s

<0.8 0 0.80-1.0 8 1.08-1.6 7 1.67-2.5 0 2.50-3.3 3 3.33-5.0 0 >5.0 0 Subbituminou s

<0.8 0 N.A . 2.7 8 N.A . 1.5 8 0.80-1.0 8 3.3 1 2.7 8 1.3 7 1.4 5 1.08-1.6 7 3.2 7 —1.3 6 0.9 5 1.67-2.5 0 3.2 4 —1.2 6 0.9 4

a Te npercen t discoun t rate . Fiftee nyea r periodbeginnin g in1987 . N.A . = no t available . 

### N.A . 3.2 5 3.1 2 3.0 2 2.8 7 2.6 2 2.4 5 3.3 7

3.2 1 3.1 6 2.9 5 2.8 8 2.5 3 2.4 2 N.A .

1.9 5 1.8 2 1.8 3

- -
—

__ 

### 1.8 4 1.64 1.3 2 1.4 2

—

- -

- -
# C_2016007EN.01000201.xml

| 11.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 7/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/2

---

Taking of the oath by the new Members of the Court of Justice

(2016/C 007/02)

Following their appointment as Judges at the Court of Justice for the period from 7 October 2015 to 6 October 2021 by decision of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States of the European Union of 16 September 2015 (1), Mr Vilaras and Mr Regan took the oath before the Court of Justice on 7 October 2015.

1

Following their appointment as Advocates General at the Court of Justice for the period from 7 October 2015 to 6 October 2021 by decision of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States of the European Union of 1 April 2015 (2), 12 June 2015 (3) and 16 September 2015 (4) Mr Saugmandsgaard Øe, Mr Bobek and Mr Campos Sánchez-Bordona took the oath before the Court of Justice on 7 October 2015.

2

3

4

---

(1)  OJ L 244, 19.9.2015, p. 58.

1

(2)  OJ L 96, 11.4.2015, p. 11.

2

(3)  OJ L 151, 18.6.2015, p. 24.

3

(4)  See footnote 1.

4

---