alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### A Pocono Country Place Inc. v. Steinhauser

*369
      *Frank A. Trainor,*for plaintiffs.

*David*A. Martino, for defendants.

March 4, 1987

O’BRIEN, J.,

On July 29, 1985, plaintiffs commenced an action in assumpsit before a district justice to collect sums allegedly due and owing for utility services. The district justice entered a judgment for plaintiffs and defendants filed an appeal in this court docketed at no. 2331 Civil of 1985. Plaintiffs failed to file a complaint in this court following a praecipe to do so, whereupon defendants filed a praecipe for non pros pursuant to Pa.R.C.P.D.J. 1006. On January 2, 1986, plaintiffs commenced a new action in this court for collection of the same sums referenced in the prior action. After completion of the pleadings, defendants have filed a motion for summary judgment which is now before the court for disposition.

In their brief and at argument, defendants argue that the entry of non pros in the appeal of the magistrate’s judgment is res judicata, and therefore, plaintiffs are precluded from commencing a separate action for the same cause. Defendants rely upon the decision of the Superior Court in A.C. *Elfman & Sons Inc. v.*Clime, 355 Pa. Super. 394, *370513 A.2d 488 (1986) where the court held that the doctrine of res judicata establishes that a final valid judgment upon the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction bars any future suit between the parties on the same cause of action. In that case, a judgment had been entered by a district justice by agreement of the parties and constituted an adjudication of the merits. Subsequently one party became disenchanted with the agreed upon judgment and filed an appeal. The appeal was stricken for failure to file a complaint in accordance ' with Pa.R.C.P.D.J. 1006.

The case at bar is clearly distinguishable because plaintiffs prevailed in the proceeding before the magistrate. Thus no adjudication on the merits has been rendered in favor of defendants which would give rise to the doctrine of res judicata. In *Haefner v.*Sprague, 343 Pa. Super. 342, 494 A.2d 1115 (1985), the Superior Court enunciated the following rule which is applicable to the case at bar:

> “The legal effect of the entry of a judgment of non pros is not such as to preclude a plaintiff who suffers such a judgment from instituting another suit on the same cause of action provided, however, that the second suit is brought within the period of the statute of limitations.”

It is not disputed that the present action was commenced by plaintiffs within the statute of limitations. Therefore, the motion for summary judgment must be denied.

ORDER

And now, this March 4, 1987, defendant’s motion for summary judgment is denied.
Exhibit 21



Subsidiaries of Roanoke Electric Steel Corporation



The following are the direct and indirect subsidiaries of Roanoke Electric Steel Corporation



|                                                        |  |                              |  |                                                                                           
|------------------------------------------------------- |  | ---------------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Name                                                    |  | Jurisdiction of Organization |  | Name Under Which a Subsidiary Does Business
in Addition to the Subsidiarys Corporate Name
|John W. Hancock, Jr. Incorporated                       |  | Virginia                     |  | Hancock Rack                                                                              
|RESCO Steel Products, Inc.                              |  | Virginia                     |  |                                                                                           
|Roanoke Technical Treatment & Services, Inc. (Inactive) |  | Virginia                     |  |                                                                                           
|Shredded Products Corp.                                 |  | Virginia                     |  |                                                                                           
|Socar, Inc.                                             |  | South Carolina               |  |                                                                                           
|Socar of Ohio, Inc.                                     |  | Ohio                         |  |                                                                                           
|Steel of West Virginia, Inc.                            |  | Delaware                     |  |                                                                                           
|Marshall Steel, Inc.                                    |  | Delaware                     |  |                                                                                           
|Steel Ventures, Inc.                                    |  | Delaware                     |  |                                                                                           
|SWVA, Inc.                                              |  | Delaware                     |  |
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 12, 2016

No. 04-16-00498-CV

IN THE MATTER OF B.M.G.,

From the 386th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015JUV00638

Honorable Laura Parker, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

On September 23, 2016, after the notice of appeal filing fees remained unpaid, we 

ordered appellant B.M.G. to show cause in writing by October 3, 2016, that the filing fees have 

been paid. The fees were paid on October 7, 2016; our September 23, 2016 order is satisfied. 

We reinstate the appellate timetable. Appellant’s brief is due on November 2, 2016. 

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 12th day of October, 2016.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
#### Manco v. State

112,194

03/31/2016

Denied.

51 Kan. App. 2d 733
File 10: Fuel Oil
                                 (CBECS89.A10)
 
Ques-
tion-
naire   Variable                                  Variable   Variable  Variable
item    Description                               Name       Position  Format  

FILE10

CASEID  Building identifier                       BLDGID4      1-   5
        Census region                             REGION4      7-   7  $REGION.
        Census division                           CENDIV4      9-   9  $CENDIV.
B2      Square footage                            SQFTC4      11-  12  $SQFTC.
        Principal building activity               PBA4        14-  15  $ACTIVTY.
F3      Year construction was completed           YRCONC4     17-  18  $YRCONC.
P3      Total fuel oil tank capacity (gallons)    TOTCAP4     20-  25  MISS6CH.
        Imputed total tank capacity (gallons)     ZTOTCAP4    27-  27  $ZVAR.
        Adjusted weight                           ADJWT4      29-  36
        Variance stratum                          STRATUM4    38-  39
        Pair indicator                            PAIR4       41-  41
        Electricity supplied                      ELSUPL4     43-  43  $XXSUPL.
        Natural gas supplied                      NGSUPL4     45-  45  $XXSUPL.
        Fuel oil supplied                         FKSUPL4     47-  47  $XXSUPL.
        Steam supplied                            STSUPL4     49-  49  $XXSUPL.
        Hot water supplied                        HWSUPL4     51-  51  $XXSUPL.
        Annual fuel oil deliveries (gals.)        FKCNS4      53-  64  COMMA15.
        Annual fuel oil deliveries (mBtu)         FKBTU4      66-  79  COMMA18.
        Annual fuel oil expenditures              FKEXP4      81-  89  COMMA11.
M-2     How fuel oil is billed                    FKBLTYP4    91-  91  $BILTYP.
M-5     Fuel oil bill coverage                    FKCOVER4    93-  93  $COVER.
        Fuel oil aggregated/disaggregated         FKDSAG4     95-  95  $DISAGG.
        Distillate fuel oil supplied              DISTIL4     97-  97  $YESNO.
        Residual fuel oil supplied                RESID4      99-  99  $YESNO.
        Kerosene supplied                         KERO4      101- 101  $YESNO.
        Other fuel oil supplied                   OTFK4      103- 103  $YESNO.
        Includes some fuel oil data from 1990     FKTRNS4    105- 105  $YESNO.
        Fuel oil deliveries imputation            ZFKCNS4    107- 107  $ZCNSEXP.
        Imputed distillate fuel oil supplied      ZDISTIL4   109- 109  $ZVAR.
        Imputed residual fuel oil supplied        ZRESID4    111- 111  $ZVAR.
        Imputed kerosene supplied                 ZKERO4     113- 113  $ZVAR.
        Imputed other fuel oil supplied           ZOTFK4     115- 115  $ZVAR.
        Fuel oil expenditures imputation          ZFKEXP4    117- 117  $ZCNSEXP.
        Imputed fuel oil account classification   ZFKACCL4   119- 119  $ZVAR.
No. 12-5122.

#### Muhonen *v.*Cingular Wireless Employee Services, LLC, et al.

C. A. 8th. Cir. Certiorari denied.
# table1
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 52 (Tuesday, March 18, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 12743]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-6399]


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


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. 96-ACE-22]


Amendment to Class E Airspace, Alliance, NE

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Direct final rule; confirmation of effective date.

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

SUMMARY: The direct final rule, published on January 14, 1997, amends 
the Class E airspace area at Alliance Municipal Airport, Alliance, NE. 
The Federal Aviation Administration has developed a Standard Instrument 
Approach Procedure (SIAP) based on the Global Positioning System. The 
effect of the direct final rule is to provide additional controlled 
airspace for aircraft departing Alliance Municipal Airport.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 22, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kathy Randolph, Air Traffic Division, Operations Branch, ACE-530C, 
Federal Aviation Administration, 601 East 12th Street, Kansas City, MO 
64106, telephone: (816) 426-3408.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA published the direct final rule with 
a request for comments in the Federal Register on January 14, 1997 (62 
FR 1828). The FAA uses the direct final rulemaking procedure for a non-
controversial rule where the FAA believes that there will be no adverse 
public comment. This direct final rule advised the public that no 
adverse comments were anticipated, and that unless a written adverse 
comment, or a written notice of intent to submit such as adverse 
comment, was received within the comment period, the regulation would 
become effective on May 22, 1997. No adverse comments were received, 
and thus this document confirms that this final rule will become 
effective on that date.

    Issued in Kansas City, MO, on February 26, 1997.
Herman J. Lyons, Jr.,
Manager, Air Traffic Division, Central Region.
[FR Doc. 97-6399 Filed 3-17-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
No. 12-5056.

#### Kordenbrock *v.*Brown et al.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
North Dakota
[ARTICLE] 5
<TABLE>
<S>                             <C>
[PERIOD-TYPE]                   6-MOS
[FISCAL-YEAR-END]                          APR-30-2001
[PERIOD-END]                               OCT-31-2000
[CASH]                                               3
[SECURITIES]                                         0
[RECEIVABLES]                                        0
[ALLOWANCES]                                         0
[INVENTORY]                                          0
[CURRENT-ASSETS]                                     3
[PP&E]                                               0
[DEPRECIATION]                                       0
[TOTAL-ASSETS]                                       3
[CURRENT-LIABILITIES]                             1000
[BONDS]                                              0
[PREFERRED-MANDATORY]                                0
[PREFERRED]                                          0
[COMMON]                                           168
[OTHER-SE]                                      (1165)
[TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY]                         3
[SALES]                                              0
[TOTAL-REVENUES]                                     0
[CGS]                                                0
[TOTAL-COSTS]                                     1000
[OTHER-EXPENSES]                                     0
[LOSS-PROVISION]                                     0
[INTEREST-EXPENSE]                                   0
[INCOME-PRETAX]                                      0
[INCOME-TAX]                                         0
[INCOME-CONTINUING]                                  0
[DISCONTINUED]                                       0
[EXTRAORDINARY]                                      0
[CHANGES]                                            0
[NET-INCOME]                                    (1000)
[EPS-BASIC]                                        0
[EPS-DILUTED]                                        0
</TABLE>
EX-10.4





 Exhibit 10.4 

ALTUS POWER, INC. 
 102
Greenwich Avenue 
 Greenwich, CT 06830 

July 12, 2021 
 Gregg Felton 

Lars Norell 
 [VIA EMAIL] 

Re: Post-Merger Incentive Equity 
 Dear
Mr. Felton and Mr. Norell: 
 Altus Power, Inc. (the “Company”) is pleased to present the
incentive equity package outlined below, contingent upon consummation of an anticipated business combination (the “Transaction”) with a special purpose acquisition company (the ultimate public company being the
“PubCo”). 
 Reference is made to the Business Combination Agreement (the “Combination
Agreement”), dated as of July 12, 2021, by and among CBRE Acquisition Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“PubCo”), CBAH Merger Sub I, Inc., a Delaware corporation, CBAH Merger Sub II, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company, Altus Power America Holdings, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, APAM Holdings LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, and Altus Power, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”). Except as otherwise indicated,
capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings set forth in Article I of the Combination Agreement 

Subject to, and as soon as practicable following, the consummation of the Transaction, the board of directors of PubCo (the
“Board”) or the compensation committee of the Board (the “Compensation Committee”) will grant to senior members of Company, including to Mr. Felton and Mr. Norell, time-based restricted stock
units (“RSUs”) with respect to an aggregate five percent (5%) of PubCo’s Class A Common Stock on a fully diluted basis, excluding the then-outstanding shares of PubCo Class B Common Stock or any shares of Pubco’s
Class A Common Stock into which such shares of Pubco’s Class B Common Stock are or may be convertible. The RSUs will be allocated based on the recommendation of the compensation consultant(s) to the Compensation Committee (which shall
include at least Mercer and one other compensation consultant proposed by CBRE Acquisition Sponsor, LLC) and as determined by the Compensation Committee. Subject to continued employment on each applicable vesting date, the RSUs will vest 33 1⁄3% on each of the third, fourth and fifth anniversaries of the date the Transaction is consummated. 

This letter, along with the other documents referred to herein, collectively constitute the entire agreement between the
parties hereto with respect to the subject matter addressed herein. This agreement may only be modified in a writing signed by a duly authorized officer of the Company and by each of the other parties hereto. 

 

	
	 Sincerely,

	
	 Altus Power, Inc.

	
	 /s/ Dustin Weber

	 Name: Dustin Weber

	 Title: Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer



  

	
	 ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED

	 AS OF THE DATE FIRST WRITTEN ABOVE

	
	 /s/ Gregg Felton

	Gregg Felton
	
	 /s/ Lars Norell

	Lars Norell
S94A1613.

#### HOUSTON v. THE STATE.

(453 SE2d 26)

Hunstein, Justice.

James Kelly Houston was convicted of the felony murder of Eleanor Woods and was sentenced to life in prison. He appeals from the denial of his motion for a new trial.1

1. Woods died from a single gunshot wound to the back of her head. The shot was fired within three or four feet of the victim. Ap*8pellant testified that he shot Woods with his .38 handgun but did so out of self-defense. No other gun was found at the crime scene. The evidence supports the felony murder conviction. *Jackson v. Virginia,*443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979).

Decided February 13, 1995.

*Elliott A. Shoenthal,*for appellant.

*J. Tom Morgan, District Attorney, John H. Petrey, Barbara B. Conroy, Assistant District Attorneys, Michael J. Bowers, Attorney General, Susan V. Boleyn, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Rachelle L. Strausner, Assistant Attorney General,*for appellee.

2. We have reviewed appellant’s remaining enumerations of error2 and find them to be without merit.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*

1

 The homicide occurred on July 11, 1983. This Court affirmed Houston’s original conviction and sentence in *Houston v. State,*253 Ga. 696 (324 SE2d 183) (1985). Upon a finding by the U. S. Court of Appeals (11th Cir.) that Houston’s appellate counsel had rendered ineffective assistance of counsel which actually prejudiced Houston, a writ of habeas corpus was issued and Houston was retried September 13-16, 1993. Houston was found guilty on September 16, 1993 and was sentenced the same day. His motion for new trial was filed on October 11, 1993 and was denied in its amended form on May 12, 1994. A notice of appeal was filed on June 9, 1994 and the case was docketed in this Court on July 20, 1994. The appeal was submitted for decision without oral argument on September 12, 1994.

2

 Appellant enumerates as error the refusal to give a charge on involuntary manslaughter; the ineffectiveness of trial counsel; the admission of his custodial statement; the prosecution’s mention of appellant’s prior trial; ballistics testimony by the medical examiner; and evidence of prior difficulties between the parties.
# Data for Table B40

# RSEs for Table B40
September 14, 2016

 Exemption No. 11066E

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA−2014−0353

Mr. Tony Carmean

Aerial MOB, LLC

2236 Rutherford Road, #115

Carlsbad, CA 92008

Dear Mr. Carmean:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption No. 

11064D. It explains the basis for our decision, describes its effect, and lists the conditions and 

limitations.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated April 11, 2016, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on 

behalf of Aerial MOB, LLC (hereinafter petitioner or operator) for an extension to your 

current exemption. That exemption from §§ 61.23(a) and (c), 61.101(e)(4) and (5), 61.113(a), 

61.315(a), 91.7(a), 91.119(c), 91.121, 91.151(a)(1), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) and 

(2), and 91.417(a) and (b) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) allows the 

petitioner to operate a UAS to perform closed-set motion picture and television filming. 

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons 

relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested extension of the exemption would not set a 

precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to the petitioner.

Our Decision

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 11066,

remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. Therefore, under the 

authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 40113 and 44701, delegated to me by the 

Administrator, the operator is granted an extension to its exemption. 
2

The operator shall add this amendment to its original exemption.

 

Conditions and Limitations

All conditions and limitations within Grant of Exemption No. 11066 remain in effect. The 

termination date has been updated. 

Failure to comply with any of the conditions and limitations of this grant of exemption will be 

grounds for the immediate suspension or rescission of this exemption. 

This exemption terminates on September 30, 2017, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/

John S. Duncan

Director, Flight Standards Service
**Exhibit
      32(a)**


**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350**





I,
      Mark J. Morrison, the principal executive officer of Hallmark Financial
      Services, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certify that the accompanying report
      on
      Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2007, and filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), fully
      complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange
      Act of 1934, as amended. I further certify that the information contained in
      the
      Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
      results of operations of the Company.




Date:
                May 10, 2007/s/
                  Mark J. MorrisonMark
                      J. Morrison,
                    Principal
                      Executive
                      Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
 <LEGEND>
      THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
      FINANCIAL STATEMENTS CONTAINED IN THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR 
      ENDED FEBRUARY 29, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
      SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>                                      
<MULTIPLIER>                   1                
<CURRENCY>                     U.S. Dollars                
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               FEB-28-1997          
<PERIOD-START>                  MAR-01-1996               
<PERIOD-END>                    NOV-30-1996    
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                           1     
<CASH>                              835,049           
<SECURITIES>                              0    
<RECEIVABLES>                    19,459,522    
<ALLOWANCES>                        726,000    
<INVENTORY>                      21,285,736    
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                 42,092,766    
<PP&E>                           12,610,845    
<DEPRECIATION>                    2,566,189    
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                   54,648,483              
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>            14,169,942    
<BONDS>                           6,181,071    
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0    
<PREFERRED>                               0    
<COMMON>                             57,474    
<OTHER-SE>                       33,199,996    
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>     54,648,483    
<SALES>                          62,878,324    
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                 62,878,324    
<CGS>                            45,909,026    
<TOTAL-COSTS>                    45,909,026    
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          0    
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0    
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                1,060,938    
<INCOME-PRETAX>                   5,037,152             
<INCOME-TAX>                      1,787,000    
<INCOME-CONTINUING>               3,250,152    
<DISCONTINUED>                            0    
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0    
<CHANGES>                                 0    
<NET-INCOME>                      3,250,152    
<EPS-PRIMARY>                           .55    
<EPS-DILUTED>                           .56    
        


</TABLE>
document.write('<span class="update">  Release Date: November 2010<br/>  Next Release Date: One-Time<br/>  </span>')