alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 23.1






                               ENGINEER'S CONSENT


   We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
   (No. 33-32378 and No. 33-67924) on Form S-8 and the Registration Statement
   (No. 333-00815) on Form S-3 of Devon Energy Corporation the reference to
   our appraisal report for Devon Energy Corporation as of December 31, 1995,
   which appears in the December 31, 1995 annual report on Form 10-K of Devon
   Energy Corporation.


                                                            William E. LaRoche
                                                          LAROCHE & ASSOCIATES


   March 4, 1996
#### Janie C. Suder *v.*John Suder

(No. 7415)

Submitted October 26, 1932.

Decided November 1, 1932.

*Wm. T. George,*for appellant.

Hatoher, President:

In this suit the trial court granted the defendant a divorce on his cross-bill charging adultery, and awarded him the custody of his three children. The plaintiff submits to the divorce, but contests the disposal of the children.

The evidence on the charge of the wife’s adultery is subject to enough suspicion to prevent our denying the mother’s plea because of that charge alone.

The plaintiff and a daughter, eleven years old, testified that defendant has a violent temper, that he uses the coarsest language, and that he was exacting, inconsiderate and cruel to his family. He denied that testimony; but he was found guilty by a justice of beating the plaintiff, and a neighbor observed bruises on the child’s body which it and plaintiff testified were inflicted by defendant. He is subject to epileptic fits which perhaps account for his unfortunate disposition. Besides being temperamentally unfit to rear the children, he has no definite plan of caring for them. In his deposition, he said that if awarded them he would more than *665likely go to housekeeping (on his farm) with a hired housekeeper if he could get one who would treat the children right and *it paid him, to do it;*otherwise he might “batch” with the children. He said, “I ain’t to say just sure what I might do. I might do it and I might not.”

Following the domestic rupture, the plaintiff took the children to the home of her parents, where they haYe been ever since. The undisputed testimony shows that the children are welcome, are properly and lovingly cared for, and are sent to a convenient school. Having the welfare of the children.first in mind, it would not be considerate to disrupt the present arrangement for the indefinite proposal of the father — even were he a fit person.

The custody of the children is accordingly awarded to the plaintiff and the decree of the lower court is reversed in that respect. The defendant, however, shall have the right of reasonable visitation. The cause is remanded with direction to the circuit court to require of defendant a reasonable contribution towards the support of the children.

*Reversed in part and remanded.*
**Exhibit 4.4**

----

**LENDER ACCESSION AGREEMENT**

| To:          |   | THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND PLC      as Agent  |
|-------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------|
|              |   |                                          |
| From:   |   | MERRILL LYNCH INTERNATIONAL BANK      LIMITED |

1 May 2007

**Vodafone Group Plc – U.S.$4,675,000,000 Revolving Credit Agreementdated 24 June 2005 (the “Credit Agreement”)**

Terms used herein which are defined in the Credit Agreement shall have the same meaning herein as in the Credit Agreement.

We refer to Clause 2.7 (Additional Lenders).

We, Merrill Lynch International Bank Limited agree to become party to and to be bound by the terms of the Credit Agreement as an Additional Lender in accordance with Clause 2.7 (Additional Lenders) with effect on and from 8 May 2007.

Our Revolving Credit Commitment is U.S.$175,000,000.

We confirm to each Finance Party that we:

|        | (a)    | have made our own independent investigation and assessment of the financial condition and affairs of each Obligor and its related entities in connection with its participation in the Credit Agreement and have not relied exclusively on any information provided to us by a Finance Party in connection with any Finance Document; and |
|--------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      |

|  | (b) | will continue to make our own independent appraisal of the creditworthiness of each Obligor and its related entities while any amount is or may be outstanding under the Credit Agreement or any Commitment is in force. |
|--|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

The Facility Office and address for notices of the Additional Lender for the purposes of Clause 32.2 (Addresses for notices) is:

Merrill Lynch International Bank Limited  Treasury Building  Lower Grand Canal Street  Dublin 2

This Agreement is governed by English law.

MERRILL LYNCH INTERNATIONAL BANK LIMITED

By:       

Lee HallaAuthorised Signatory

THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND PLC

By:       

Mary DarganAuthorised Signatory

VODAFONE GROUP PLC

By:       

----
#### State of West Virginia *v.*Roy Leatherwood

(No. 7139)

Submitted May 17, 1932.

Decided May 24, 1932.

*Hubbard & Bacon,*for plaintiff in error.

*H. B. Lee,*Attorney General, and *W. Elliott Nefflen,*Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

*340Hatcher, PresideNT:

Defendant was convicted of participating in tbe robbery of a gasoline filling station. lie seeks reversal, charging insufficiency of tbe evidence to sustain conviction and error in tbe admission of evidence, and in an instruction given at tbe instance of tbe state.

Tbe attendant of the filling station positively identified the accused as one of two unmasked robbers, who with drawn pistols forced him to surrender tbe money of tbe station. There were also circumstances corroborating tbe attendant. Tbe accused denied any connection whatever with tbe robbery and attempted to prove an alibi. Tbe conflict in tbe evidence was a jury question. Tbe evidence offered by- tbe state is ample to sustain tbe verdict.

Evidence was introduced tending to show that three days after *the*robbery a certain revolver was fired near a public resort and then thrown away either by defendant or a companion who was an alleged accomplice in tbe robbery. The revolver was not identified as one bad by tbe robbers, or even shown to be similar in appearance to either of tbe revolvers presented by them. This evidence does not tend to establish tbe specific crime charged and was therefore inadmissible. “Tbe test of tbe admissibility of evidence of a subsequent offense is, does proof of tbe subsequent act have some logical connection with and tend to establish tbe specific crime charged.” *State*v. Adkins, 109 W. Va. 579, 155 S. E. 669, (see authorities cited p. 581). Tbe evidence of tbe subsequent offense tended to show that tbe accused was a lawless character, and was therefore prejudicial.

Tbe instruction complained of follows: “Tbe Court instructs tbe Jury that robbery is feloniously and forcibly taking from tbe person of another goods or money of any value by violence or by putting in fear and tbe Court further instructs tbe Jury that, if you believe beyond a reasonable doubt, that tbe defendant, Roy Leatherwood by himself or in company with Odell MeGaha did on tbe 11th day of March, 1931, feloniously and forcibly by putting Aubrey Biggs in fear, take from tbe said Aubrey Biggs tbe *341sum óf seventeen dollars, then yon are instructed to find the defendant, Roy Leatberwood, guilty as charged in the indictment.”

The indictment charges that the robbery was accomplished by means of a dangerous and deadly weapon. This instruction would be more apt if it followed the charge in the indictment. The instruction omits the *animus furandi.*It would be more complete if the element of intent were included. The instruction is therefore imperfect, though not essentially prejudicial, and should be corrected upon another trial.

For the error in admitting evidence as to the subsequent offense, the judgment is reversed, the verdict set aside, and a new trial awarded the accused.

*Reversed,; verdict set aside; new trial awarded.*
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-20274

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSE RAFAEL PARDO,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-99-CR-405-1

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

April 10, 2002

Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Rafael Pardo appeals his guilty-plea conviction and

sentence for conspiracy and aiding and abetting to possess with

intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine, in

violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 & 846, and 18 U.S.C. § 2. Pardo

argues that, in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466

(2000), 21 U.S.C. § 841 is unconstitutional. Pardo acknowledges

that this court has rejected his argument and asserts that he

raises the issue solely to preserve it for possible Supreme Court

review. As Pardo concedes, the constitutionality of 21 U.S.C.
No. 01-20274 

-2-

§ 841 has been upheld by this court. See United States v.

Slaughter, 238 F.3d 580, 582 (5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 532

U.S. 1045 (2001).

Pardo also argues that this court should remand his case to

the district court with instructions to “correct” the judgment to

reflect the district court’s post-sentence remission of the $200

special assessment. The district court’s post-sentence order 

remitting the special assessment effectively revised the judgment

of sentence. The entry of a revised judgment to reflect the

post-sentence order is therefore unnecessary and does not require

this court’s intervention. 

AFFIRMED.
( Adopted : 05/15/12)

AVAQMD Rule 107 107-1

Certification of Submissions and Emission Statement s 

## RULE 107
Certification of Submissions and Emission Statement s

(A) Submission Certification

(1) All official documents submitted to the Antelop e Valley Air Pollution Control District (District) shall contain a certification s igned and dated by a responsible official of the company. This certification must a ttest that the information
contained in the submitted documents is accurate to the best knowledge of the individual certifying the submission. The requirem ents of this Section apply to, but are not limited to, the emissions statements re quired in Section (B)(1).



### (B) Emission Statement

(1) In accordance with the requirements of the 1990 Clean Air Act (Section 182 (a)(3)(B)(i)), the owner or operator of any station ary source that emits or may emit oxides of nitrogen or Volatile Organic Compounds (V OCs) shall provide the Air Pollution Control Officer (APCO) with a written sta tement showing actual emissions of oxides of nitrogen and VOCs from that source. At a minimum the emission statement shall be submitted as specified in the transaction format
detailed in the California Air Resources Board’s “C alifornia Emission Inventory Development and Reporting System.” The emission st atement shall contain emission data for the time period specified by the APCO. Emission statements shall be submitted annually.

(2) The APCO may waive the requirements of Section (B)(1) for any class or category of stationary sources which emit less than 25 tons per year of oxides of nitrogen or reactive organic compounds. The waiver is contingent on the District providing the California Air Resources Board with a n inventory of sources emitting greater than 10 tons per year of nitrogen oxides or VOCs based on the use of emission factors acceptable to the Californi a Air Resources Board and the United States Environmental Protection Agency.

See SIP Table at http://www.avaqmd.ca.gov/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx? documentid=921107-2 AVAQMD Rule 107
Certification of Submissions and Emission Statement s This page intentionally left blank.
Exhibit 4.1




	
  

  	
  PRESIDENT
  SECRETARY This Certifies that is the record holder of INCORPORATED UNDER THE
  LAWS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE SEE REVERSE FOR CERTAIN DEFINITIONS CUSIP
  89413J 10 2 FULLY PAID AND NONASSESSABLE SHARES OF COMMON STOCK, $0.00001 PAR
  VALUE, OF TRANZYME, INC. transferable on the books of the Corporation by the
  holder hereof in person or by duly authorized attorney upon surrender of this
  Certificate properly endorsed. This certificate is not valid until
  countersigned by the Transfer Agent and registered by the Registrar. WITNESS
  the facsimile seal of the Corporation and the facsimile signatures of its
  duly authorized officers. Dated: T COUNTERSIGNED AND REGISTERED: (JERSEY
  CITY, NJ) TRANSFER AGENT AND REGISTRAR BY AUTHORIZED OFFICER TRANZYME, INC.
  CONTINENTAL STOCK TRANSFER & TRUST COMPANY

  






 


 












	
  

  	
  FOR VALUE
  RECEIVED, hereby sell, assign and transfer unto PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY
  OR OTHER IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE (PLEASE PRINT OR TYPEWRITE NAME AND
  ADDRESS, INCLUDING ZIP CODE, OF ASSIGNEE) Shares of the common stock
  represented by the within Certificate, and do hereby irrevocably constitute
  and appoint Attorney to transfer the said stock on the books of the within
  named Corporation with full power of substitution in the premises. Dated
  Signature(s) Guaranteed By THE SIGNATURE(S) MUST BE GUARANTEED BY AN ELIGIBLE
  GUARANTOR INSTITUTION (BANKS, STOCKBROKERS, SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS AND
  CREDIT UNIONS WITH MEMBERSHIP IN AN APPROVED SIGNATURE GUARANTEE MEDALLION
  PROGRAM), PURSUANT TO S.E.C. RULE 17Ad-15. THE SIGNATURE(S) TO THIS ASSIGNMENT
  MUST CORRESPOND WITH THE NAME(S) AS WRITTEN UPON THE FACE OF THE CERTIFICATE
  IN EVERY PARTICULAR, WITHOUT ALTERATION OR ENLARGEMENT OR ANY CHANGE
  WHATEVER. X X NOTICE: The following abbreviations, when used in the
  inscription on the face of this certificate, shall be construed as though
  they were written out in full according to applicable laws or regulations:
  TEN COM TEN ENT JT TEN as tenants in common as tenants by the entireties as
  joint tenants with right of survivorship and not as tenants in common UNIF
  GIFT MIN ACT– Custodian (Cust) (Minor) under Uniform Gifts to Minors Act
  (State) UNIF TRF MIN ACT– Custodian (until age) (Cust) under Uniform
  Transfers (Minor) to Minors Act (State) – – – Additional abbreviations may
  also be used though not in the above list.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.9

                                    GUARANTY

         This GUARANTY is made as of April 30, 2002 by NOBLE CORPORATION, a
Cayman Islands exempted company limited by shares (the "Company"), for the
benefit of Julie J. Robertson (the "Executive");

                                   WITNESSETH:

         WHEREAS, Noble Drilling Corporation, a Delaware corporation and an
indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of the Company ("Noble-Delaware"), has entered
into an Amended and Restated Employment Agreement with the Executive dated as of
the date hereof (the "Employment Agreement"); and

         WHEREAS, the Company desires to guarantee the performance by
Noble-Delaware of its obligations under the Employment Agreement, and the Board
of Directors of the Company has determined that it is reasonable and prudent for
the Company to deliver this Guaranty and necessary to promote and ensure the
best interests of the Company and its Members;

         NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, the Company hereby
irrevocably and unconditionally guarantees, as primary obligor, the due and
punctual performance by Noble-Delaware of its agreements and obligations, all
and singular, under the Employment Agreement. This Guaranty shall survive any
liquidation of Noble-Delaware or any of its subsidiaries. This Guaranty shall be
governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Texas.

         The obligations of the Company hereunder shall be absolute and
unconditional and shall remain in full force and effect until the termination of
the Employment Agreement or the complete performance by Noble-Delaware of its
obligations thereunder, irrespective of the validity, regularity or
enforceability of the Employment Agreement, any change or amendment thereto, the
absence of any action to enforce the same, any waiver or consent by the
Executive or Noble-Delaware with respect to any provision of the Employment
Agreement, the recovery of any judgment against Noble-Delaware or any action to
enforce the same, or any other circumstances that may otherwise constitute a
legal or equitable discharge or defense of the Company. The Company waives any
right of set-off or counterclaim it may have against the Executive arising from
any other obligations the Executive may have to Noble-Delaware or the Company.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Agreement to be
executed on its behalf by its duly authorized officer as of the date first above
set forth.

                                   NOBLE CORPORATION


                                   By:      /s/ James C. Day
                                            ------------------------------------
                                   Name:    James C. Day
                                            ------------------------------------
                                   Title:   Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
                                            ------------------------------------



                                       1
Exhibit 10.53


XL CAPITAL LTD


FORM OF LETTER AGREEMENT RELATING TO
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


Re: Ordinary Share Exchange


Dear
__________:


                    As
you know, XL Capital Ltd, a Cayman Islands company (the “Company”), is
considering proposing a scheme of arrangement under Cayman Islands law to its
ordinary shareholders, which effectively will change the Company’s place of
incorporation to Ireland from the Cayman Islands. Completion of the proposed
scheme of arrangement will result in an exchange of all of the Class A ordinary
shares of the Company for ordinary shares of XL Capital plc, an Irish company
(“Irishco”), on a one-for-one basis (the “Ordinary Share Exchange”).



                    Pursuant
to our discussions regarding the terms of the employment agreement between you
and the Company, dated ___________ (the “Employment Agreement”), and the
technical issues concerning whether the Ordinary Share Exchange might
constitute or be deemed to constitute a change in control under the Employment
Agreement, and in view of the fact that it would not result in a change in the
ultimate economic owners and controlling persons in the Company, you agree and
acknowledge that in the event the Company does effect the Ordinary Share
Exchange, it will not constitute or result in (or be deemed to constitute or
result in) a change in control under the terms of the Employment Agreement. In
addition, you acknowledge that the Company would assign its rights and
obligations under the Employment Agreement to Irishco upon the completion of
the Ordinary Share Exchange. This letter agreement is for the benefit of the
Company and its affiliates.


(signatures on following page)





                    If
the terms of this letter agreement meet with your approval, please sign and
return one copy to me.


	
  

 	
  

 	
  

 
	
  

 	
  

 	
 Sincerely,

 
	
  

 	
  

 	
  

 
	
  

 	
  

 	

 


 
	
  

 	
  

 	
 XL CAPITAL
 LTD

 
	
 AGREED TO
 AND ACCEPTED:

 	
  

 	
  

 
	
  

 	
  

 	
  

 
	

 


 	
  

 	
  

 
	
 Executive

 	
  

 	
  

 
	
  

 	
  

 	
  

 
	
 Date:
 ___________, 2009

 	
  

 	
  

 









SCHEDULE 1


Each of the
following executive officers signed the letter agreement, in form attached, as
of December 15, 2009:


	
  

 
	
 David B.
 Duclos

 
	
 Kirstin R.
 Gould

 
	
 Michael S.
 McGavick

 
	
 Elizabeth L.
 Reeves

 
	
 Jacob D.
 Rosengarten

 
	
 Sarah E.
 Street

 
	
 James H.
 Veghte
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.2

Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the quarterly report of Texas United Bancshares, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Thomas N. Adams, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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 operating results of the Company.

|                      |  |                             
|--------------------- |  | ----------------------------
|Date: August 12, 2003 |  | /s/ Thomas N. Adams         
|                      |  |                             
|                      |  | Thomas N. Adams             
|                      |  | Executive Vice President and
|                      |  | Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 21





SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT





Parent (at December 31, 2001)

Subsidiary

Percentage of OwnershipBay View Capital Corporation

Bay View Bank, N.A.

100
%Bay View Capital Corporation

Bay View Securitization Corporation

100
%Bay View Capital Corporation

Bay View Capital I

100
%Bay View Capital Corporation

FMAC Insurance Services (1)

100
%Bay View Capital Corporation

FMAC 2000-A Holding Company (1)

100
%Bay View Capital Corporation

FMAC Franchise Receivables Corporation

100
%Bay View Bank, N.A.

Bay View Acceptance Corporation

100
%Bay View Bank, N.A.

Bay View Commercial Finance Group

100
%Bay View Bank, N.A.

XBVBKRS, Inc. (1)

100
%Bay View Bank, N.A.

MoneyCare, Inc.

100
%Bay View Bank, N.A.

Bay View Auxiliary Corporation

100
%


---

|(1) |  | Inactive subsidiaries.
|--- |  | ----------------------




The financial statements of the Registrant are consolidated with those of its subsidiaries.
EXHIBIT 32




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


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Norton Industries Corp. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2003, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Jianjun Zhang, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

   (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 result of operations
        of the Company.


By:  /s/ Jianjun Zhang
------------------------------
Jianjun Zhang, President
(Principal Executive Officer and
Principal Financial Officer)


November 5, 2003