alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE:

ORDER AMENDING RULES

410, 430, AND 1065 AND 

ADOPTING RULE 1064 OF THE 

PENNSYLVANIA RULES OF CIVIL 

PROCEDURE

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

NO. 655

CIVIL PROCEDURAL RULES

DOCKET 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 29

th day of November, 2016, upon the recommendation of the 

Civil Procedural Rules Committee; the proposal having been published for public 

comment at 45 Pa.B. 1249 (March 14, 2015):

IT IS ORDERED pursuant to Article V, Section 10 of the Constitution of 

Pennsylvania that Rules 410, 430, and 1065 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil 

Procedure are amended in the attached form, and that Rule 1064 of the Pennsylvania 

Rules of Civil Procedure is adopted in the attached form.

This ORDER shall be processed in accordance with Pa.R.J.A. No. 103(b), and 

shall be effective January 1, 2017.

Additions to the rule are shown in bold and are underlined.

Deletions from the rule are shown in bold and brackets.
# C_2016044EN.01000101.xml

| 5.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7885 — BP Europa/Ruhr Oel)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 44/01)

On 1 February 2016, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in the English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M7885. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M7885. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
EXHIBIT 21

Deltic Timber Corporation

Subsidiaries of the Registrant

As of December 31, 2008



|                                      |  |                      
|------------------------------------- |  | ---------------------
|Subsidiaries                          |  | State ofIncorporation
|Deltic Timber Purchasers, Inc.        |  | Arkansas             
|                                      | 
|Deltic Southwest Timber Company       |  | Arkansas             
|                                      | 
|Deltic Real Estate Investment Company |  | Delaware             
|                                      | 
|Chenal Properties, Inc.               |  | Arkansas             
|                                      | 
|Chenal Country Club, Inc.             |  | Arkansas
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-12-0001085

30-NOV-2016

09:31 AM
EXHIBIT 13.1





CERTIFICATION





PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,





AS ADOPTED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Oded Bashan, as Chief Executive Officer of On Track Innovations Ltd. (the “Company”), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge the accompanying annual report on Form 20-F/A for the year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.





Date: March 16, 2012
By:
/s/ Oded BashanOded BashanChief Executive Officer of the Company
**Exhibit 3.2.3**

 

**THIRD AMENDMENT**

**TO THE BYLAWS**

**OF**

**TRAMMELL CROW COMPANY**

 

 

**Article IV**

**Committees**

                *Section2.  Procedure; Meetings; Quorum*.  Any committee designated pursuant to Section1 of this Article shall keep regular minutes of its proceedings and report thesame to the Board of Directors when requested, shall fix its own rules orprocedures, and shall meet at such time and at such place or places as may beprovided by such rules, or by resolution of such committee or resolution of theBoard of Directors.  Committee membersand committee chairpersons shall be appointed by the Board of Directors.  The quorum requirement for any meeting ofany Board committee shall be as set forth in the charter for that committee ifsuch charter has been approved by the Board of Directors, and if no suchcharter has been so approved (or if any such approved charter does notdesignate the quorum requirement for that committee) the presence of a majorityof all the members of that committee shall constitute a quorum.

 

**CERTIFICATION**

                I, the undersigned officer,hereby certify this 2nd day of March, 2004 that the foregoing Section 2 ofArticle IV was duly approved and adopted as an amendment to the bylaws, asamended, of Trammell Crow Company and was approved and adopted by the Board ofDirectors of Trammell Crow Company at a meeting held March 2, 2004.

 
|   |   |                                   |
|--------|--------|----------------------------------------|
|   |   | /s/ J. CHRISTOPHER KIRK                |
|   |   | J. Christopher Kirk                    |
|   |   | Executive Vice President and Secretary |

 

 

----
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19

- 10301 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
ALFRED BROWN , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:16

- CR

- 194

- 1

Before STEWART, HIGGINSON, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Alfred Brown appeals the district court’s revocation of a previously imposed term of supervised release and its imposition of an 11

- month term of imprisonment. Brown asserts that his supervised release was revoked pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583(g), which re quires revocation and imposition of a term of imprisonment where the defendant is found to have committed certain types of violations of the terms of supervised release, including the possession

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set f orth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED December 5, 2019 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 19-10301 Document: 00515224491 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/05/2019No. 19

- 10301

2 of a controlled substance. He argues that, because § 3583(g) does not require a jury determination under a beyond

- a
- reasonable

- doubt standard, it is unconstitutional in light of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in United States v. Haymond , 139 S. Ct. 2369 (2019). As Brown concedes, we review for plain error. T o prevail on plain error review, he must show a forfeited error that is clear or obvious and that affects his substantial rights. See Puckett v. United States , 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If Brown makes such a showing, this court has the discretion to corr ect the error but only if it “‘seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’” Id.
The decision in Haymond addressed the constitutionality of § 3583(k) of the supervised release statute, and the plurality opini on specifically stated that it was not expressing any view on the constitutionality of other subsections of the statute, including § 3583(g). See Haymond , 139 S. Ct. at 2382 n.7. Because there currently is no case law from either the Supreme Court or thi s court extending Haymond to § 3583(g) revocations, we conclude
that there is no error that i s plain. See United States v. Escalante

- Reyes , 689 F.3d 415, 418 (5th Cir. 2012) (en banc); United States v. Gonzalez , 792 F.3d 534, 538 (5th Cir. 2015). As Br own has not demonstrated that the district court committed plain error, his revocation and term of imprisonment are AFFIRMED. Case: 19-10301 Document: 00515224491 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/05/2019
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 7238** 

LAMAR JORDAN , Petitioner

– Appellant ,
v. KEITH DAVIS, Warden , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Richmond
. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. ( 3:13

- cv - 00735

- REP )

Submitted : December 18, 2015 Decided: January 20, 2016

Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and HARRIS , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Jonathan P. Sheldon, SHELDON, FLOOD & HAYWOOD, PLC, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellant. Robert H. Anderson, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Lamar Jordan seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

ce rtificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (A) (2012)
. A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockr ell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a consti tutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Jordan has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argumen t because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Exhibit
      32.1





**SECTION
      906 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**





**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 (the "Report") of China Biopharmaceuticals
      Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September
      30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
      hereof, I, Chris Peng Mao, Chief Executive Officer 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; and





2.  The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




Date: November
                14, 2006
              By:
              /s/ Chris
                Peng MaoChris
                  Peng Mao
                Chairman
                  and
                Chief
                  Executive Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-1392

THOMAS T. POSTON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Greenville. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge.

(CA-98-3789-6)

Submitted: August 30, 2000 Decided: September 6, 2000

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas T. Poston, Appellant Pro Se. Carol S. Prescott, SOCIAL

SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Denver, Colorado, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Thomas T. Poston appeals the district court’s order granting

summary judgment to the Commissioner on Poston’s action seeking

review of the denial of Social Security disability benefits. This

case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(B) (1994). The magistrate judge recommended that summary judgment be granted to the Commissioner. Poston, who was represented by counsel in the district court, failed to object to the

magistrate judge’s report.

The timely filing of objections to a magistrate judge’s

recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the

substance of the report and recommendation. See Wells v. Shriners

Hosp., 109 F.3d 198, 199-201 (4th Cir. 1997) (holding that counseled party’s failure to timely file objections to magistrate

judge’s recommendation waives his right to appeal). Because Poston

did not file objections, he waived appellate review. Accordingly,

we dismiss this appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED
# C_2015246EN.01000201.xml

| 28.7.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 246/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.7.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 246/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

27 July 2015

(2015/C 246/02)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1058 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 136,23 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4615 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,71270 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,4530 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0595 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,0420 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,029 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 310,02 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1285 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4180 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 3,0679 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5184 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4409 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,5708 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6741 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5152 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 293,39 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 14,0287 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 6,8668 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5965 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 924,55 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,2242 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 50,356 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 65,8165 |
| THB | Thai baht | 38,585 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,7354 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 18,0555 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 70,9592 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1058

JPY

Japanese yen

136,23

DKK

Danish krone

7,4615

GBP

Pound sterling

0,71270

SEK

Swedish krona

9,4530

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0595

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,0420

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,029

HUF

Hungarian forint

310,02

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1285

RON

Romanian leu

4,4180

TRY

Turkish lira

3,0679

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5184

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4409

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,5708

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6741

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5152

KRW

South Korean won

1 293,39

ZAR

South African rand

14,0287

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

6,8668

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5965

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 924,55

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,2242

PHP

Philippine peso

50,356

RUB

Russian rouble

65,8165

THB

Thai baht

38,585

BRL

Brazilian real

3,7354

MXN

Mexican peso

18,0555

INR

Indian rupee

70,9592

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

CHAI DEVELOPERS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,

a Florida limited partnership,

Appellant,

v.

GFS STORES, LLC, a Delaware

limited liability company,

Appellee.

Nos. 4D16-1490 and 4D16-3243

[December 14, 2017]

Consolidated appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial 

Circuit, Broward County; Michael L. Gates, Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE 

14-018879 (12).

Philip M. Burlington of Burlington & Rockenbach, P.A., West Palm 

Beach, and Stephen J. Padula of Padula Bennardo Levine, Boca Raton, 

and Bernard Egozi and Issac Lew of Egozi & Bennett, P.A., Aventura, for 

appellant.

Nancy A. Copperthwaite, Dana A. Clayton and Lorayne Perez of 

Akerman LLP, Miami, and Scott W. Rostock of Akerman LLP, Fort 

Lauderdale, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

WARNER, CONNER and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATION REQUIRED BY SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with this annual report on Form 10-K of Deltic Timber Corporation (the report) for the
purpose of complying with Rule 13a14(b) or Rule 15d14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

Ray C. Dillon, the Chief Executive Officer, and Clefton D. Vaughan, the Chief Financial Officer, each certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:



| | (1) | the report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | the information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Deltic Timber Corporation.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Ray C. DillonRay C. DillonChief Executive OfficerMarch 9, 2006




/s/ Clefton D. VaughanClefton D. VaughanChief Financial OfficerMarch 9, 2006
AVS

Quality Management

System

TIUe: Domestic New Action Worksheet with S8

QPM'

AlR-ANM-Q3O-F7

Date; DeCember 17, 2008

Revision

1

Record of Contacts

;2.olD-OO'-\~

FDMSDocketNo.FAA-j08_- _

With whom outside the FAA has this proposal be<:ndiscussed (e.g., ATA, RAA, ALPA, etc.)?

.!Vi;<f71i .. ;<';<)rgaaizatiolf ,~- -_~T-'-"-,.i

'"

~ ._ - •• ·C.O

_"~-'I'CfSOn COl1ladtd ~ 0,,, , .'?',

ATA Mark Lo"" 06I191t)9

UNCONlROLlEO COPY WHEN DOWNLOADED

Check lbe Mas:er 1.1&I10Ved:y Thal nos is !he C<mlCt ReviOOn Before U$e
#### Nielsen Media Research, Inc., Appellant, v The Carlton Hotel, LLC, Respondent, et al., Respondent.

[774 NYS2d 8]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered July 17, 2003, which, upon renewal/reargument of a prior order that had declared that monies paid by respondent Carlton Hotel to respondent general contractor Inman Construction’s subcontractors, suppliers and other third parties did not violate a restraining notice served on Carlton by petitioner, adhered to that prior order, and additionally dismissed this petition, finding that the restraining notice was not violated by Carlton’s payment directly to Inman because Carlton was not indebted to Inman at the time it was served with the notice, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered January 23, 2003, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as superseded by the appeal from the later order.

At the time petitioner’s restraining notice was served on Carlton, judgment debtor Inman owed Carlton an amount that was more than twice the profit to which Inman would become entitled upon completion of the construction project. Although Carlton made payments directly to Inman following service of petitioner’s restraining notice, such payments were for the costs *140of the project, to avoid the expense of having to seek a new contractor to complete the work. No payment was allocated to Inman’s profit. These payments did not violate the restraining notice, inasmuch as Carlton, at the time it was served, owed no “debt” to Inman and was not in possession of any money or property in which Inman had “an interest” under CPLR 5222 (b) and 105 (i) *(see Matter of Cosmopolitan Mut. Cas. Co. of N.Y. v Monarch Concrete Corp.,*6 NY2d 383).

Even were it assumed that Carlton had violated the restraining notice, petitioner cannot demonstrate—given Carlton’s superior right of setoff—that any money Carlton paid to Inman would otherwise have been available to satisfy the judgment *(see Aspen Indus. v Marine Midland Bank, 52*NY2d 575 [1981]; Debtor and Creditor Law § 151). Nor is petitioner entitled to a declaration that monies that will become due and payable to In-man from Carlton should be available to satisfy the judgment, since there is no debt that will become due at a certain time or upon Inman’s demand (CPLR 5201 [a]; *see generally Matter of Supreme Mdse. Co. v Chemical Bank,*70 NY2d 344, 349 [1987]). At this point, even upon completion of the construction project, Inman will still owe Carlton more than what Inman would otherwise be entitled to as a fee. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Andrias, Sullivan and Lerner, JJ.
Exhibit 10.30
​

July 29, 2021
​
Dhiraj Cherian
7801 Point Meadows Drive 
Unit 5406
Jacksonville, FL 32256 
​
​
Dear Dhiraj,
​
​
Thank you for your interest in joining Ferrellgas! We are pleased to offer you the Chief Financial Officer position with a tentative start date of Thursday, September 16, 2021.
​
Your compensation package will include an annualized salary of $525,000.00 to be paid bi-weekly during your employment, along with an Incentive Target of 50% of your annualized salary. You will be eligible for the standard package of Ferrellgas benefits as outlined in the program documents.
​
​
Employment is contingent upon all the following:
		·
	Your acceptance of this offer via your signature below.


		·
	Your signature to an employee agreement (to be provided).


		·
	Your signature to an invention agreement (to be provided).


		·
	Negative drug screen results (test to be arranged before you start the position).


		·
	Successfully pass a background review (will be conducted before you start the position).


​
​
Please acknowledge your acceptance of this offer by signing and returning to Brent Banwart (brentbanwart@Ferrellgas.com) by Friday, July 30, 2021. All terms and conditions of this offer are strictly confidential. Should you have questions, please contact me at (507) 440-5415.
​
​
I look forward to working with you and anticipate that you will provide significant contributions to Ferrellgas!
​
​
Sincerely,
​
Jim Ferrell
​
Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President 
Ferrellgas
​
​
Enclosures
​
I accept Ferrellgas’ offer of employment as presented in this correspondence. I understand and agree that my employment with the company is entered into voluntarily and that I may resign at any time.
Similarly, my employment may be terminated for any reason and at any time without previous notice.
​
	Signature:
	
	  
	Date:
	July 29, 2021



Copy to Personnel file