alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Baker, Bray and Overton 

Argued at Norfolk, Virginia 

CHARLES HENRY CRENNEL 

v. Record No. 2629-94-1 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

 JUDGE RICHARD S. BRAY 

MILDRED L. HENDERSON CRENNEL SEPTEMBER 19, 1995 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF PORTSMOUTH 

L. Cleaves Manning, Judge 

 B. Thomas Reed for appellant. 

 (Donald G. Wise, on brief), for appellee. Appellee 

 submitting on brief. 

 Charles Henry Crennel (husband) and Mildred L. Henderson 

Crennel (wife) were divorced by decree of the trial court entered 

on November 14, 1994. Husband complains on appeal that the court 

erroneously classified as marital property certain "retirement 

incentive pay" received by him and awarded wife a related "lump sum 

payment." However, because of deficiencies in the record, we are 

unable to properly consider this issue and affirm the decree. 

 Following an ore tenus hearing before a commissioner in 

chancery, the commissioner reported to the trial court that the 

disputed "separation pay" was "in lieu of wages," an "inducement" 

for husband to "take early retirement," and, therefore, husband's 

separate property. Wife's exception to this finding was argued by 

counsel before the trial court and, "[u]pon consideration of the 

. . . report and recommendations, the evidence and argument . . .," 

the trial judge concluded that the payment constituted "marital 

 

 *Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not designated 

for publication. 
- 2 - 

property . . . to be divided between the parties." No transcript 

or written statement of these proceedings is before this Court. 

See Rule 5A:8. 

 It is well established that an equitable distribution award 

will not be reversed on appeal 

 [u]nless it appears from the record that the 

chancellor has abused his discretion, that he 

has not considered or has misapplied one of the 

statutory mandates, or that the evidence fails 

to support the findings of fact underlying his 

resolution of the conflict in the 

equities . . . . 

Robinette v. Robinette, 10 Va. App. 480, 486, 393 S.E.2d 629, 633 

(1990) (citations omitted). The ruling of the trial court is 

"presumed to be correct and the burden is on the appellant to 

present to us a sufficient record from which we can determine 

whether the . . . court . . . erred . . . . [Otherwise,] the 

judgment will be affirmed." Justis v. Young, 202 Va. 631, 632, 119 

S.E.2d 255, 256-57 (1961) (citations omitted); Smith v. 

Commonwealth, 16 Va. App. 630, 635, 432 S.E.2d 2, 6 (1993). 

 Here, the record reflects that the trial court sustained 

wife's exceptions to the commissioner's report and attendant 

recommendations following an ore tenus hearing. This ruling is 

presumably correct and, with no record of the related hearing, we 

are unable to properly review the decree for error.1

 Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. 

 Affirmed.

 

 1Husband's appellate counsel first appeared of record following 

entry of the decree in contention.
---

---

EXHIBIT 15.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No.
333-101990, No. 333-11560 and No. 333-125064) pertaining to certain employee stock option
plans of Top Image Systems Ltd. and the Registration Statement on Form F-3 (No.
333-119885) of our report dated March 30, 2007 with respect to the consolidated
financial statements of Top Image Systems Ltd. as of December 31, 2006, included in the
Annual Report on Form 20-F of Top Image Systems Ltd. for the year ended December 31,
2006.

|Tel-Aviv, Israel
March 30, 2007 | Kost Forer Gabbay & Kasierer
A Member of Ernst & Young Global
|------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------



---

---
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2976 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2976

 To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to permit a Federal student 
loan borrower to elect to terminate repayment pursuant to income-based 
repayment and repay such loan under any other repayment plan for which 
                  the borrower is otherwise eligible.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 7, 2021

  Ms. Murkowski (for herself, Mr. Reed, and Mr. Braun) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                 Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to permit a Federal student 
loan borrower to elect to terminate repayment pursuant to income-based 
repayment and repay such loan under any other repayment plan for which 
                  the borrower is otherwise eligible.

    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 ``Student Loan Repayment Freedom 
Act''.

SEC. 2. SWITCHING FROM INCOME-BASED REPAYMENT PLAN.

    Section 493C(b)(8) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
1098e(b)(8)) is amended to read as follows:
            ``(8) a borrower who is repaying a loan made under part B 
        or D pursuant to income-based repayment may elect, at any time, 
        to terminate repayment pursuant to income-based repayment and 
        repay such loan under any other repayment plan for which the 
        borrower is otherwise eligible under this title; and''.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2015350EN.01000102.xml

| 22.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 350/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 350/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7767 — FIS/Sungard)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 350/02)

On 16 October 2015, 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 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 32015M7767. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7767. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

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

1

---
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 967

_____________________________
H ERBERT A LEXANDER W EGER , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County

. Thomas V. Dannheisser , Judge

. May 8, 2019

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. W OLF , M AKAR , and M.K. T HOMAS , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________

Herbert Alexander Weger
, pro se, Appellant.2 Ashley Moody
, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
EXHIBIT 32
         CERTIFICATION OF OFFICER OF SANGUI BIOTECH INTERNATIONAL, INC.
                        PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350

Pursuant to section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 (subsection (a) and
(b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) the undersigned
officer of Sangui  BioTech  International,  Inc.  (the  "Company")  does  hereby
certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:

          (a)  The  quarterly  report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March
               31, 2004 of the Company fully complies with the  requirements  of
               section  13(a) or 15(b) of the  Securities  Exchange Act of 1934;
               and

          (b)  Information  contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all
               material  respects,   the  financial  condition  and  results  of
               operations of the Company.

Date: May 14, 2004                   /S/ WOLFGANG BARNIKOL
                                     -------------------------------------
                                     Wolfgang Barnikol
                                     President, Chief Executive Officer
                                     and Chief Financial Officer


                                                                            -13-
# C_2015088EN.01000501.xml

| 14.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 88/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88/5

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

13 March 2015

(2015/C 88/04)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,0572 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 128,41 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4595 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,71525 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,1518 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0648 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,6255 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,315 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 306,50 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1539 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4471 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,7890 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,3800 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3462 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,2114 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,4397 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,4679 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 199,18 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 13,1788 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 6,6172 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,6548 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 13 969,84 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 3,9021 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 46,909 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 64,5063 |
| THB | Thai baht | 34,784 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,3893 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 16,3713 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 66,6332 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,0572

JPY

Japanese yen

128,41

DKK

Danish krone

7,4595

GBP

Pound sterling

0,71525

SEK

Swedish krona

9,1518

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0648

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,6255

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,315

HUF

Hungarian forint

306,50

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1539

RON

Romanian leu

4,4471

TRY

Turkish lira

2,7890

AUD

Australian dollar

1,3800

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3462

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,2114

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,4397

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,4679

KRW

South Korean won

1 199,18

ZAR

South African rand

13,1788

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

6,6172

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,6548

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

13 969,84

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

3,9021

PHP

Philippine peso

46,909

RUB

Russian rouble

64,5063

THB

Thai baht

34,784

BRL

Brazilian real

3,3893

MXN

Mexican peso

16,3713

INR

Indian rupee

66,6332

---

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

1

Source

---
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission

# AGENCY:

U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission.

# ACTION:

Notice; correction.

# SUMMARY:

                        The U.S.-China Commission published a document in the                         **Federal Register**                         on March 24, 2015, concerning notice of an open public hearing to be held in Washington, DC to inform production of the Commission's 2015 Annual Report to Congress. The background section and room number for this meeting has changed.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Rickisha Berrien-Lopez, 202-624-1454.                              ( print page 17154)    

## Corrections

*Background:*                         This is the fourth public hearing the Commission will hold during its 2015 report cycle to collect input from academic, industry, and government experts on national security implications of the U.S. bilateral trade and economic relationship with China. This hearing will explore the advancement of China's offensive missile forces—both conventional and nuclear—and security implications for the United States. The hearing will be co-chaired by Vice Chairman Dennis Shea and Commissioner Katherine Tobin Ph.D. Any interested party may file a written statement by April 1, 2015, by mailing to the contact below. A portion of each panel will include a question and answer period between the Commissioners and the witnesses.                    

*Location, Date and Time:*                         Room SD-562, Dirksen Senate Office Building.                    

Michael Danis,

Executive Director, U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission.

[FR Doc. 2015-07261 Filed 3-30-15; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 1137-00-P
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 16, 2018

No. 04-17-00676-CV

REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 404 FULLER ST., KERRVILLE, KERR COUNTY, 

TEXAS,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 216th Judicial District Court, Kerr County, Texas

Trial Court No. 16620A

Honorable N. Keith Williams, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

This is an appeal of a judgment in a civil forfeiture proceeding. The first brief appellant 

filed on February 20, 2018 was stricken because the brief failed to comply with Rule 38.1 of the 

Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, including the rules requiring appellant to provide citations 

to the appellate record. The second brief filed by appellant on May 7, 2018 was not ordered 

stricken; however, appellant was informed the court could consider her appellate complaints 

waived due to inadequate briefing. 

In her reply brief filed on July 2, 2018, appellant asserts she requested a copy of the 

appellate record from the trial court but never received the record. Our record reflects the trial 

court signed an order finding appellant indigent for purposes of the appellate record. Although 

the appellate record was filed in this court without requiring appellant to pay the fees for the 

preparation of the appellate record, appellant was never provided with a copy of the record.

It is therefore ORDERED that the clerk of this court include a copy of the appellate 

record with appellant’s copy of this order. Appellant’s briefs filed on May 7, 2018 and July 2, 

2018 are STRICKEN. Appellant must file an amended brief no later than thirty days from the 

date of this order. Appellant is reminded that her brief contains numerous violations of Rule 
38.1 as referenced in this court’s March 8, 2018 order and May 9, 2018 letter separate and apart 

from her failure to provide citations to the appellate record, including her failure to cite any case 

law or other authority in support of her arguments in her original brief or in response to the law 

cited by the State in her reply brief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(i) (requiring argument to be 

supported by appropriate citations to authority). Appellant is also reminded that her failure to 

correct the briefing deficiencies in this third opportunity will allow this court to consider her 

appellate complaints waived due to inadequate briefing. See, e.g., Lott v. First Bank, No. 04-13-

00531-CV, 2014 WL 4922896, at *2 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Oct. 1, 2014, no pet.); Castillo v. 

Peoples, No. 04-13-00311-CV, 2014 WL 1089750, at *3 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Mar. 19, 

2014, pet. denied).

Entered on this 16th day of July, 2018.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO:____________________________

Keith E. Hottle,

Clerk of Court
**EXHIBIT 99.2**

**CERTIFICATION OFPERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORTS**

The undersigned hereby certifies that this Quarterly Report on Form10-Qfor the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2002 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a)or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in this report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial conditions and results of operations of Summus, Inc.(USA).

 

| Date:      November 14, 2002 |      /s/Robert S. Lowrey                                            Robert S. Lowrey Chief Financial Officer |
|------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
## 1999 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

9-12-1999 

# H ul l v . K y le r
P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : D ock e t 97-7551

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_1999

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. I t h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 1999 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min

. C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du

. 

## R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" H ul l v . K y le r " (1999). 1999 D e cisio n s . P a pe r 254. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_1999/254

### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

No. 97-7551 Hull v. Kyler The following modifications have been made to t he Court's Opinion issued on August 23, 1999, to the above-en titled appeal and will appear as part of the final version of the opinion:

1. On page 7, line 16, the word "retrying" sh ould be changed to "trying." 2. On page 40, second full paragraph, line 1 , the word "retry" should be "try"; on line 2, the word "retrial" should be "trial"; and on line 6, the word "retrying" should be changed to "trying." 3. On page 40, third full paragraph, line 4, the word "retried" should be changed to "tried." 4. On page 41, line 1, the word "retry" shoul d be changed to "try."

Very truly yours,
/s/ P. Douglas Sisk, Clerk

Dated: September 10, 1999
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-25-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-25-1997
<CASH>                                           8,010
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,661
<ALLOWANCES>                                       195
<INVENTORY>                                     40,399
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                63,262
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  86,361
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           18,789
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      64,762
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    83,361
<SALES>                                        179,877
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               179,877
<CGS>                                          121,382
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  121,382
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                50,045
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,254
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,230
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,987)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              8,217
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,217
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .93
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, June 07, 2016.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of

the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, June 07, 2016

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A16D0389. IN THE INTEREST OF: E. B., A CHILD (FATHER) .

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

029141115