alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 The Honorable Ortrie D. Smith, United States District Court Judge for the Western

District of Missouri sitting by designation.

2 The Honorable Richard H. Battey, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-1838 ) KURT SCHMIDT, ) ) Appeal from the United States Appellant, ) District Court for the District

) of South Dakota v. ) ) [Unpublished] KENNETH S. APFEL, ) Commissioner of Social Security, ) ) Appellee. )

Submitted: December 16, 1999 Filed : March 22, 2000
Before MURPHY and MAGILL, Circuit Judges, and SMITH, 1 District Judge.
SMITH, District Judge.
PER CURIAM. Kurt Schmidt appeals the district court’s 2adverse ruling affirming the Commissioner’s decision to deny Schmidt’s claim that he was disabled due to his depression. After careful review of the parties’ briefs and the administrative record, we agree with the district court’sdetermination. Because an extended opinion would lack precedential value, we affirm for the

reasons stated by the district court without further discussion. See 8 thCir. R. 47B.
A true Copy. Attest. CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT
EXHIBIT 10.18


 





November 27, 2013


 


First National Community Bancorp, Inc.


 


2013 Employee Stock Grant Plan


 


Purpose:


 


		·	The purpose of the First National Community Bank (FNCB) 2013 Employee Stock Grant Plan (the Plan) is to provide employees with
a long term financial interest in FNCB’s future growth and profitability by providing them with company ownership in the
form of common stock.



 


Term:


 


		·	The 2013 Employee Stock Grant Plan is intended to be a one-time program implemented in December, 2013.



 


Stock Subject to Plan:


 


		·	The 2013 Employee Stock Grant Plan will utilize existing, authorized, but unissued FNCB common stock. The shares of stock granted
under this Plan will not exceed 15,000 shares.



 


Plan Approval and Administration:


 


		·	The FNCB Board of Directors is responsible for authorizing this Plan. The Board of Directors authorized the implementation
of this Plan by Board resolution on November 27, 2013.



		·	The Plan will be administered by Human Resources and Finance.



 


Awards:


 


		·	All eligible employees will be granted fifty (50) shares of FNCB common stock.



		·	Awards will be kept in book entry form using FNCB’s designated stock registration firm.



  


Plan Eligibility: To be eligible to participate in the Plan,
an employee must be:


 


		·	An active FNCB employee classified as Full Time or Part Time as of the date the program is announced to employees (the “Effective
Date”).



 


		·	All executive officers who are actively employed on the Effective Date will be eligible to participate in the Plan.



 


 



    	1



    	 



    




 


Stock Restrictions:


 


		·	Stock Grant recipients may not sell the shares granted under the Plan until after January 1, 2015. FNCB’s designated
stock registration firm will be responsible for administering the terms of this Plan provision.



 


Plan Participant Responsibilities:


 


		·	Award recipients will be responsible for all costs and fees associated with the sale of their FNCB stock.



		·	Award recipients will be responsible for all tax obligations arising from the stock grant and ownership of stock under this
Plan.



 


Transfer of Shares:


 


		·	Except as noted below, shares may not be transferred or sold to another party prior to January 1, 2015.



		·	In the event of an employee’s death prior to the date that the one year prohibited sale restriction has been satisfied,
the shares will be transferred to the employee’s estate, for distribution pursuant to the employee’s will or applicable
law. The shares will then remain subject to the restriction on transfer.



 











    	2
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

CHRISTOPHER C. GARCIA,

Appellant,

v.

GERMAN PERFORMANCE,

Appellee.

No. 4D2024-0852

[July 31, 2024]

Appeal from the County Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit,

Broward County; Kathleen McHugh, Judge; L.T. Case No. COCE23-8487.

Christopher C. Garcia, Sebring, pro se.

No brief filed for appellee. 

PER CURIAM.

The court has reviewed appellant’s brief and finds that no preliminary 

basis for reversal has been demonstrated. The appeal is therefore affirmed 

pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.315. Additionally, we 

deny appellee’s May 22, 2024 amended motion for attorney’s fees and deny 

as moot appellee’s May 29, 2024 amended motion to strike appellant’s 

initial brief.

Affirmed.

GROSS, DAMOORGIAN and FORST, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Omar Enrique VERASTEGUI-SAENZ, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-50491 Summary Calendar c/w No. 17-50496

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed March 2, 2018

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX,' for Plaintiff-Appellee

Omar Enrique Verastegui-Saenz, Pro Se

Before KING, ELROD, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Omar Enrique Verastegui-Saenz- has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Verastegui-Saenz 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 consolidated appeals' present no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the CONSOLIDATED APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 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.
<PAGE>
 
Exhibit 16.1

April 23, 1997

Securities and Exchange Commission
Washington, D.C. 20549

We were previously principal accountants for Territorial Resources, Inc.
(Commission File No. 0-9617) and we reported on the financial statements of
Territorial Resources, Inc. as of and for the year ended March 31, 1996 and
1995.  On April 14, 1997, our appointment as principal accountants was
terminated.  We have read Territorial Resources, Inc.'s statements included
under Item 4 of its Form 8-K dated April 14, 1997, and we agree with such
statements.

Respectfully,

/s/ Hein + Associates LLP
-------------------------
Hein + Associates LLP


                                       4
#### Daniel Moreno PALACIOS, also known as Javier Hernandez Dela Cruz, Petitioner v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III, U. S. Attorney General, Respondent

No. 16-60697 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed January 4, 2018

Francisco Alvillar, Alvillar Law, P.C., San Antonio, TX, for Petitioner

Claire L. Workman, Senior. Litigation Counsel, Maarja Tiganik Luhtaru, Trial Attorney, David Michael McConnell, Office of Immigration Litigation, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Sandra M. Heathman, U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services, Houston, TX, for Respondent

Before REAVLEY, PRADO, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Daniel Moreno Palacios, a native and citizen of Mexico, challenges the validity of a 2013 removal order in this petition for review. Palacios failed to contest the 2013 order earlier in the proceedings. He did not respond to the Notice of Intent to Issue a Final Administrative Removal Order or otherwise attempt to rebut the charge that he was removable based on his prior conviction for an aggravated felony, nor did he challenge the 2013 order by filing a petition for review. *See 8*C.F.R, § 238.1(c), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5). He also reentered the United States illegally in violation of his deportation order.

This court lacks jurisdiction to consider the constitutional challenge to the underlying removal order. *See Martinez v. Johnson,*740 F.3d 1040, 1042-43 (5th Cir. 2014). Palacios’s petition for review is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

*

 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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         993,685
<SECURITIES>                                 2,944,967
<RECEIVABLES>                                   20,490
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    146,769
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,202,488
<PP&E>                                       1,041,315
<DEPRECIATION>                                (475,777)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,971,274
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          174,479
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        42,961
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,753,834
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,971,274
<SALES>                                         20,490
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                20,490
<CGS>                                            4,098
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,098
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               319,036
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (566,907)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (566,907)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (566,907)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.13)
        


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                         160,245
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     61,054
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                        696,297
<ALLOWANCE>                                      7,820
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,023,310
<DEPOSITS>                                     876,602
<SHORT-TERM>                                     3,374
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             17,510
<LONG-TERM>                                     28,130
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     11,659
<COMMON>                                        84,038
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,997
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               1,023,310
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 33,835
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                2,239
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                36,074
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              11,550
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              13,870
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           22,204
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    1,922
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 24,477
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,166
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       7,166
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,423
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     .152
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .135
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    5.88
<LOANS-NON>                                      7,712
<LOANS-PAST>                                     1,136
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                 4,133
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 9,395
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    4,205
<RECOVERIES>                                       708
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                7,820
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             7,820
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
# C_2023164EN.01001601.xml

| 8.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 164/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 164/16

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 9 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Paris — France) — Sogefinancement v RW, UV

(Case C-50/22, (1) Sogefinancement)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 2008/48/EC - Credit agreements for consumers - Scope - Right of withdrawal - Article 14(7) - National provisions establishing a period of time during which the performance of the contract may not begin - National procedural rules governing how the national courts raise of their own motion and penalise breaches of those provisions - Article 23 - Effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions)

(2023/C 164/20)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Paris

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Sogefinancement

Defendant: RW, UV

Operative part of the judgment

Article 14(7) of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC,

must be interpreted as meaning that the national procedural rules governing the raising by a national court of its own motion of, and the penalty it imposes for, a breach, by the lender, of a provision of national law establishing a period during which the performance of a credit agreement may not begin do not fall within the scope of that directive.

---

(1)  OJ C 191, 10.5.2022.

---
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.3


                           CONSENT OF DIRECTOR NOMINEE
                     PLAINS EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION COMPANY

         I hereby consent to be named in the Registration Statement on Form S-4
of Plains Exploration & Production Company (the "Registration Statement"),
including in any amendment or supplement to any prospectus included in the
Registration Statement, any amendment to the Registration Statement or any
subsequent registration statement filed pursuant to Rule 462(b) under the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended. Furthermore, I agree with the statements
concerning myself under the caption "Election of Directors."

                                        By:  /s/ Robert L. Zorich
                                             -----------------------------------
                                             Robert L. Zorich

                                        Address:  1100 Louisiana, Suite 3150
                                                  ------------------------------
                                                  Houston, Texas 77002
                                                  ------------------------------


Date:    April 29, 2003
EX-10.56



 Exhibit 10.56 
  





 
 Supplement No. 1 to the Contract 

Concerning a Credit Line 
 The following
supplement to the credit agreement of 01/25/2013 (hereinafter called the “Credit Agreement”) is concluded 
 between 

UTi Deutschland GmbH 
 Rather
Straße 78-80 
 40476 Düsseldorf 

- hereinafter called the “Borrower” - 

and 
 Commerzbank Aktiengesellschaft 

Kaiserstrasse 16 
 60311 Frankfurt
am Main 
 - hereinafter called the “Bank” - 








 



 
  Page
 2
 of 3 
  


	1	Term 

 Paragraph 1 Clause 1.1 of the Credit Agreement is restated to read as follows: 

The credit line has a term extending to 04/30/2014. 
  

	2	Other modifications 

 Paragraph 3 Clause 3.3 of the Credit Agreement is restated to read as follows: 

The Borrowers and the Bank agree upon a commitment fee of 0.1% p.a. applying to the unused amount of the credit line as of the conclusion of the supplement.
The commitment fee shall be due and shall be payable by the Borrower retroactively each month, on the last business day of the respective calendar month. 

The Borrower and the Bank agree upon a one-time up-front fee of 0.1 % (= EUR 38,000.00) of the amount of the credit line, which shall be due upon the
conclusion of the Credit Agreement and shall be paid by the Borrower. 
  

	3	Other provisions 

 All other provisions of the Credit Agreement apply unaltered. 

 

	4	Period of validity of the Bank’s offer / Conclusion of the Supplement 

 The bank is obligated to
abide by the offer made via this Supplement until 01/31/2014. 
 The foregoing Supplement to the Credit Agreement shall only take effect upon the receipt of
the original copy of this Supplement bindingly countersigned by the Borrower and any jointly liable party, but at the earliest on the last day of the previous term of the Credit Agreement. 

 

					
	Düsseldorf, 01/04/2014	 		 	Commerzbank Aktiengesellschaft
	  
	 		 	
            [Signature]       
 [Signature]

	(Place, date)	 		 	Birgit Betzinger        Christian Herget
			
	Düsseldorf, 01/31/2014	 		 	UTi Deutschland GmbH
	  
	 		 	             [Signature]

	(Place, date)	 		 	Michael Hollstein









 



 
  Page
 3
 of 3 
  


					
	Amsterdam, 01/30/2014	 		 	UTi Nederland B.V.
	  
	 		 	             [Signature]

	(Place, date)	 		 	Dennis van Aalst
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 44 (Thursday, March 6, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 10305]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-5492]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE


Notice of Meeting of the Industry Functional Advisory Committee 
on Customs Matters (IFAC 1)

AGENCY: Office of the United States Trade Representative.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Industry Functional Advisory Committee on Customs Matters 
(IFAC 1) will hold a meeting on March 24, 1997 from 9:30 a.m. to 12:30 
p.m. The meeting will be open to the public.

DATES: The meeting is scheduled for March 24, 1997, unless otherwise 
notified.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Department of Commerce in 
Room 1859, located at 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., 
Washington, D.C., unless otherwise notified.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
 Dan Gardner, Department of Commerce, 14th St. and Constitution Ave., 
N.W. Washington, D.C. 20230, (202) 482-3681 or Suzanna Kang, Office of 
the United States Trade Representative, 600 17th St. N.W., Washington, 
D.C. 20508, (202) 395-6120.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The IFAC 1 will hold a meeting on March 24, 
1997 from 9:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. The meeting will be open to the 
public and press during this time. Agenda topics to be addressed will 
be:

1.Strategies and Priorities of U.S. Trade Promotion Efforts
2. Rules of Origin Work Program
3. Regional Customs Activities
4. Customs Valuation
5. Other Business

    Attendance during this part of the meeting is for observation only. 
Individuals who are not members of the committee will not be invited to 
comment.
Phyllis Shearer Jones,
Assistant United States Trade Representative, Intergovernmental Affairs 
and Public Liaison.
[FR Doc. 97-5492 Filed 3-5-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3190-01-M
No. 11-10082.

#### Waddleton *v.*Texas.

Ct. App. Tex., 12th Dist. Certiorari denied.
No. 11-9307.

#### Henderson *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis*granted. Certiorari granted.
# C_2022119EN.01002901.xml

| 14.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 119/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 119/29

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 10 January 2022 — Syndicat Les Entreprises du Médicament (LEEM) v Ministre des Solidarités et de la Santé

(Case C-20/22)

(2022/C 119/38)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Syndicat Les Entreprises du Médicament (LEEM)

Defendant: Ministre des Solidarités et de la Santé

Question referred

Must Article 4 of Council Directive 89/105/EEC of 21 December 1988 relating to the transparency of measures regulating the pricing of medicinal products for human use and their inclusion in the scope of national health insurance systems (1) be interpreted as meaning that the concept of a ‘price freeze [...] on all medicinal products or on certain categories of medicinal products’ applies to a measure whose purpose is to control the prices of medicinal products but which concerns only certain medicinal products, on an individual basis, and is not intended to apply to all medicinal products or even to certain categories of them, when the safeguards which that article attaches to the existence of such a price-freezing measure as defined by that article appear, for such a measure, meaningless and pointless?

---

(1)  OJ 1989 L 40, p. 8.

---