alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of State of New York ex rel. Rodney Alford, Appellant, v James L. Berbary, as Superintendent of Collins Correctional Facility, Respondent.

[768 NYS2d 920]

Appeal from a judgment (denominated order) of Supreme Court, Erie County (Fahey, J.), entered January 16, 2002, which denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously modified on the law by dismissing that part of the petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus on the ground that petitioner was denied his right to *1338discretionary parole release and as modified the judgment is affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Supreme Court properly determined that petitioner is not entitled to habeas corpus relief based on his contention that he was denied his right to discretionary parole release after serving his minimum sentence, but the court should have dismissed the petition to that extent rather than denying it. We therefore modify the judgment accordingly *(see People ex rel. Stevenson v Beaver,*309 AD2d 1171 [2003]). Petitioner is not entitled to habeas corpus relief on that ground because “[p] arole decisions are discretionary and prisoners have no right to be released prior to the expiration of their sentences” *(People ex rel. Sansalone v Schriver,*252 AD2d 605, 605 [1998]; *see People ex rel. Harris v New York State Div. of Parole,*306 AD2d 938 [2003]; *People ex rel. Daniels v Beaver,*303 AD2d 1025 [2003]), and thus petitioner would not be entitled to immediate release in any event *(see Stevenson,*309 AD2d 1171 [2003]). We have considered petitioner’s remaining contentions and conclude that they lack merit. Present—Green, J.P., Scudder, Gorski, Lawton and Hayes, JJ.
|                                                                                                               
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                               
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                       
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                                 
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                                 
|View History:                                                                                                  
|                                                                                                               
|Price of Cameron (Calcasieu Pass), LA Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to Brazil (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                               
|                                                                                                               
|Price of Cameron (Calcasieu Pass), LA Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to Brazil (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                               

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2020's                                                                                                                            |        |        | 24.23  | 23.69  |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
<PAGE>
                                                                  EXHIBIT 99.1


                                CERTIFICATION OF
                            CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

             PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SS. 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                   SS. 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the
Quarterly Report of The Midland Company (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the
period ending March 31, 2003 (the "Report"), I, John W. Hayden, Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my
knowledge:

      (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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






/s/ John W. Hayden
----------------------------------------
John W. Hayden
President and Chief Executive Officer
May 12, 2003




                                       27
# Typhoon Specifications Typhoon Aircraft

Dimension

Flight Time up to 25 minutes Weight with Battery and Payload 60.0 oz (1700g) Weight without Battery and Payload 40.0 oz (1130g) Battery 5400mAh 3S 11.1V LiPo (included) Charger 3S 11.1V LiPo DC Balancing Smart Charger with AC Adapter (included) Transmitter 10-channel 2.4GHz with 5.8GHz video downlink (included) 3 Flight Modes Smart (Follow Me and Watch Me), Angle and Home Maximum Flying Height Default 122m (400ft) above Ground Level (Adjustable via the Typhoon GUI) Maximum Rotation Rate 65°/s Maximum Roll Angle 35° Operating Temperature Range

− 5°C to 80°C Radio Control Frequency Band2.4GHz Max. Descent Speed 2m/s Max. Flight Speed 17mph / 27 kph (Angle Mode), 22mph / 35 kph (Follow Me/Watch Me) 

## Gimbal Camera Type CGO3 Weight 6.9oz (195g) Focusing System Aerial Optimized Fixed Focus Field of View 115° Video Transmission Range FCC Compliance: Up to 600m (1968.5 ft) CE Compliance: Up to 300m (984.252 ft) with ST10 Video Resolution UHD: 4K at 30FPS, 2.7K at 30FPS, 2.5K at 30FPS — FULL HD: 1080p at 24/25/30/48/50/60/120FPS Photo Resolution 12 Megapixels Storage (memory) microSD Class 10 ~ 4 to 128 GB Control Angle Accuracy ±0.02° White Balance Automatic or manual settings Transmission Band 5.8GHz. Input/Operating Voltage 12V Working Temperature− 10°C–50°C Storage Temperature

− 20°C–60°C Angular Vibration Range ±0.02° Control Range Pitch: between

− 90° and 0° Microphone Yes Camera Lens 14mm f/2.8 – No distortion Sensor 1/2.3 ′′ CMOS 

## Personal Ground Station

Dimensions

Type ST10+ Operating System AndroidTM Number of Channels 10 Control Transmission Range (Optimum Conditions) FCC Compliance: Up to 800m (2624.67 ft) CE Compliance: Up to 400m (1312.34 ft) Warning: You Must Follow Local Laws and Maintain Visual Line of Sight of Aircraft at All Times Robust Radio Control Modulation Yuneec ProtocolVideo Link Frequency Band 5.8GHz Video Transmission Range (Optimum Conditions) FCC Compliance: Up to 600m (1968.5 ft) CE Compliance: Up to 300m (984.252 ft) Warning: You Must Follow Local Laws and Maintain Visual Line of Sight of Aircraft at All Times Flight Systems Telemetry Data On Screen Display Yes LED Backlit LCD Screen Capacitive Multi-touch 5.5 ′′ Tactile (Vibrating) and Audible Feedback Yes Built-in LiPo Battery Voltage / Capacity 3.6V/5200mAh 18.72Wh Screen Resolution 854 × 480px Camera Settings White balance, light exposure, ISO, shutter speed, video resolution, FPS, record video, take pictures 

## CGO Steadygrip V3

Dimensions

Weight (without camera and gimbal) 13.9 oz (395g) Compatible camera CGO2GB / CGO2+ / CGO3
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**FORM OF CERTIFICATION FOR QUARTERLY REPORT ONFORM 10-Q**

 

        I, Edward J. Kelly, III,certify that:

 

1)     I have reviewed thisquarterly report on Form 10-Q of Mercantile Bankshares Corporation;

2)     Based on my knowledge, thisquarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in lightof the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this quarterly report;

3)     Based on my knowledge, thefinancial statements, and other financial information included in thisquarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4)     The registrant’s othercertifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and15d-14) for the registrant and have:

a)     designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisquarterly report is being prepared;

b)    evaluated the effectiveness ofthe registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 daysprior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the “Evaluation Date”); and

c)     presented in this quarterlyreport our conclusions about the effectiveness of our disclosure controls andprocedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5)     The registrant’s othercertifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation,  to the registrant’s auditorsand audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent functions):

a)     all significant deficienciesin the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialdata and have identified for the registrant’s auditors any material weaknessesin internal controls; and

b)    any fraud, whether material ornot material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal controls; and

6)     The registrant’s othercertifying officers and I have indicated in this quarterly report whether therewere significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that couldsignificantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our mostrecent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses.

 

 
| /s/ Edward J. Kelly, III              |   |
|---------------------------------------|--------|
| Edward J. Kelly, III                  |
| Chairman of the Board                 |
| President and Chief Executive Officer |
| August 5, 2004                        |

 

----
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1187 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1187

 To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to direct Medicaid EHR 
  incentive payments to federally qualified health centers and rural 
                            health clinics.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 17, 2011

 Mr. Kinzinger of Illinois (for himself and Mr. Inslee) introduced the 
   following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                                Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to direct Medicaid EHR 
  incentive payments to federally qualified health centers and rural 
                            health clinics.

    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 ``Fix HIT Act of 2011''.

SEC. 2. MEDICAID EHR INCENTIVE PAYMENTS FOR FEDERALLY QUALIFIED HEALTH 
              CENTERS AND RURAL HEALTH CLINICS.

    (a) In General.--Section 1903(t) of the Social Security Act (42 
U.S.C. 1396b(t)) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (6)(A)(i)--
                    (A) by striking ``are paid'' and inserting ``(I) 
                are paid''; and
                    (B) by inserting before the period at the end the 
                following: ``, and (II) in the case of a provider 
                described in paragraph (2)(A)(iii), are paid directly 
                to the federally qualified health center or rural 
                health clinic in which the provider predominantly 
                practices, without any deduction or rebate''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
            ``(11) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to 
        allow duplicate payments to a Medicaid provider described in 
        paragraph (2)(A)(iii) and the federally qualified health center 
        or rural health clinic in which the provider predominantly 
        practices.''.
    (b) Implementation.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
the Secretary of Health and Human Services may implement the amendments 
made by subsection (a) by program instruction or otherwise.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall 
take effect 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
February 15, 2013

No. 11-796.

#### Bowman *v.*Monsanto Co. et al.

C. A. Fed. Cir. [Certiorari granted, *ante,*p. 936.] Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as *amicus curiae*and for divided argument granted, and the time is divided as follows: 30 minutes for petitioner, 10 minutes for the Solicitor General, and 30 minutes for respondents.
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Jacob Adam Garcia, * From the 42nd District Court

of Taylor County,

Trial Court No. 27130A.

Vs. No. 11-19-00344-CR * October 14, 2021

The State of Texas, * Memorandum Opinion by Williams, J. 

(Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Trotter, J., and Williams, J.

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is no 

error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s opinion, 

the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
* Pursuan t to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limit ed circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. 

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

No. 99-50975 Summary Calendar

SANDRA E. MILES, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PROTECTIVE AND REGULATORY SERVICES, Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas (EP-98-CV-377-H) February 25, 2000 Before POLITZ, WIENER, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *


### Sandra E. Miles appeals an adverse summary judgment in her employment
discrimination and retaliation claims against the Texas Department of Protective
and Regulator y Services. Our review of the record, briefs, and controlling precedents reveals no error. Accordingly, on the facts as detailed, authorities cited,
and analysis made by the district court in its Order Granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, which was signed, entered, and filed on September 13, 1999, the judgment appealed is AFFIRMED.
No. 12-896.

#### Neger *v.*Maryland.

Ct. App. Md. Certiorari denied.
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

 
 

Exhibit 10.13    
    


May
16, 2006 



Mr. Pascal
Ronde 


Dear
Pascal: 


This
letter is being sent to you to restate the terms of the special retention arrangement between Agilent Technologies, Inc. and you previously documented in the letter agreement between us
dated September 13, 2005. 


This
special retention arrangement is as follows: 



Agilent
will pay to you a retention bonus equal to the sum of (1) twelve (12) months of your base salary in effect on the Payment Date (as that term is defined in the next paragraph)
plus (2) an amount equal to a year's target bonuses payable under Agilent's Pay for Results Plan in effect on the Payment Date. 



In
order to become entitled to receive this special retention bonus, you must remain employed with Agilent through the earlier of the following dates and not be serving out a period of notice:
(1) the closing date of the distribution of Agilent's equity securities in Verigy Pte. Ltd. to Agilent's stockholders, or (2) December 31, 2006. This date will be referred
to as the "Payment Date". This retention bonus is also contingent on your good faith efforts to facilitate the spin-off process. This retention bonus will be paid to you within an
administratively reasonably period of time following the Payment Date. 




This
letter agreement replaces the incentive bonus opportunities that were outlined in letters to you dated April 13, 2005 and September 13, 2005. 


Please
return the signed original to my attention as soon as possible. 



	Address:	Agilent Technologies, Inc.

Attn: Jean Halloran

395 Page Mill Road

Palo Alto, CA 94306













Sincerely,



/s/  JEAN HALLORAN     



Jean M. Halloran 











	AGREED:	/s/  PASCAL RONDE      
 Pascal Ronde	 





	

Date:	

May 19, 2006
	

 













QuickLinks



Exhibit 10.13
# L_2010293EN.01006001.xml

| 11.11.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 293/60 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.11.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 293/60

---

COMMISSION DECISION

of 9 November 2010

amending Decision 97/555/EC on the procedure for attesting the conformity of construction products pursuant to Article 20(2) of Council Directive 89/106/EEC as regards cements, building limes and other hydraulic binders

(notified under document C(2010) 7603)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2010/683/EU)

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Directive 89/106/EEC of 21 December 1988, on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to construction products (1), and in particular Article 13(4)(a) thereof,

After consulting the Standing Committee on Construction,

Whereas:

| (1) | The Commission has adopted Decision 97/555/EC of 14 July 1997 on the procedure for attesting the conformity of construction products pursuant to Article 20(2) of Council Directive 89/106/EEC as regards cements, building limes and other hydraulic binders (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

The Commission has adopted Decision 97/555/EC of 14 July 1997 on the procedure for attesting the conformity of construction products pursuant to Article 20(2) of Council Directive 89/106/EEC as regards cements, building limes and other hydraulic binders (2).

| (2) | Following a review of the product family ‘building limes’ the Member States and the Commission considered necessary to strengthen the role of the third party involved in the certification of the factory production control. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Following a review of the product family ‘building limes’ the Member States and the Commission considered necessary to strengthen the role of the third party involved in the certification of the factory production control.

| (3) | Decision 97/555/EC should therefore be amended accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Decision 97/555/EC should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Annex III to Decision 97/555/EC is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Decision.

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 9 November 2010.

For the Commission

Antonio TAJANI

Vice-President

---

(1)  
  OJ L 40, 11.2.1989, p. 12.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 229, 20.8.1997, p. 9.

2

---

ANNEX

In Annex III to Decision 97/555/EC, the entry related to product family ‘Building limes, including: Calcium limes, Dolomitic limes, Hydraulic limes’ is replaced by the following:

| ‘Building lime, including:






  — | Calcium lime |
| --- | --- |

‘Building lime, including:

—

Calcium lime

| — | Dolomitic lime |
| --- | --- |

—

Dolomitic lime

| — | Hydraulic lime |
| --- | --- |

—

Hydraulic lime

—

2 +’

---
From: Steve Moose [mailt o:smoose@statesville.net] Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 9:07 AM To: Telander, Jeff Subject: Fw: Emailing: ltr to Jeff Telander.doc

----- Original Message ----- From: "StuWeller" <sweller@statesville.net> To: <smoose@statesville.net> Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 8:18 AM Subject: Emailing: ltr to Jeff Telander.doc

> > The message is ready to be sent with the following file or link > attachments:

> > ltr to Jeff Telander.doc

>
> > Note: To protect against computer viruses, e-mail programs may prevent > sending or receiving certain types of file attachments. Check your e-mail > security settings to determine how attachments are handled.

>

Page 1To:Jeff Telander From: Steve Moose Statesville Brick Co, Statesville, NC

Jeff we thank you for the opportunity to liste n into the phone conf erence. We found the meeting helpful in trying to understand the direction the EPA is taking. We have a few

concerns.
Health Based Studies. What approaches has EPA considered that would not tighten the limits?

New Control techniques. We at Statesv ille Brick fire our pr oducts with wood, a renewable resource. Has any studi es been made on any type c ontrol that could be used in conjunction with our firing process?

We, Statesville Brick, are a small company w ith somewhat limited resources due to our size. How is it that EPA would consider lumping into a category with companies that are worldwide and have unlimited resources due to their diversified opera tions? The cost for additional controls would be a burden insurmountable for us.

This is not saying we do not care for our environment; we have a good relationship with our local EPA regional office and will always keep the environment in mind. Also we appreciate the members of the BIA in help ing us understand the decisions that could affect our business.