alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Floods

Filters

              - science_education(17)
              - science_faqs(14)
              - science_science(750)
              - products_data(356)
              - products_maps(78)
              - products_publications(4311)
              - products_software(12)
              - products_web_tools(51)
              - multimedia_audio(105)
              - multimedia_audio-141766(96)
              - multimedia_audio-141767(9)
              - multimedia_before_after(17)
              - multimedia_image(1659)
              - multimedia_image-141769(49)
              - multimedia_image-141770(14)
              - multimedia_image-141771(1466)
              - multimedia_image-141772(11)
              - multimedia_image-141774(8)
              - multimedia_image-141775(73)
              - multimedia_image-141776(27)
              - multimedia_image-204460(5)
              - multimedia_image-207195(2)
              - multimedia_slideshow(20)
              - multimedia_video(419)
              - multimedia_video-149194(144)
              - multimedia_video-149195(141)
              - multimedia_video-149196(26)
              - multimedia_video-149197(35)
              - multimedia_video-149198(17)
              - multimedia_video-149225(7)
              - multimedia_webcam(22)
              - multimedia_webcam-141785(16)
              - multimedia_webcam-141786(4)
              - documents_file(41)
              - documents_file-149206(1)
              - documents_file-149208(6)
              - documents_file-149210(2)
              - documents_file-149212(1)
              - documents_file-149214(6)
              - documents_file-149216(4)
              - documents_file-149217(1)
              - documents_file-149218(1)
              - documents_file-149220(10)
              - documents_file-149222(3)
              - news_news-149245(99)
              - (-)news_news-149246(8)
              - news_news-149248(28)
              - news_news-149249(4)
              - news_news-149250(50)
              - news_newsletters(17)
              - news_other_news(101)
              - connect_social_media(2)
              - connect_staff_profiles(104)
              - other_basic-37(3)
              - other_basic-42(55)

## By Location

              - iowa(1)
              - louisiana(2)
              - texas(1)

## By Year

Science Snippet        May 26, 2016        EarthView–Landsat 8 Imagery Reveals Heavy Flooding in Sri Lanka

Science Snippet        June 6, 2016        EarthView–Rain-Swollen Brazos River Floods Suburban Houston

Science Snippet        February 9, 2017        EarthView–Argentina Flooding Has Major Impact on Soybean Production

Science Snippet        August 19, 2016        Backwater Flooding in Baton Rouge

Science Snippet        August 19, 2016        Science Continues during Flood Recovery

Science Snippet        July 19, 2016        Hazard a Guess? The riskiest science quiz you will ever take!

Science Snippet        October 14, 2016        EarthView–Cedar River Surges to Second-Highest Level in Eastern Iowa

Science Snippet        June 11, 2016        EarthWord–Scour
# C_2022368EN.01001903.xml

| 26.9.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 368/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.9.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 368/19

---

Order of the President of the Court of 14 July 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 1 de Cazalla de la Sierra — Spain) — Caixabank S.A. v ZN, SD, AH

(Case C-657/20) (1)

(2022/C 368/30)

Language of the case: Spanish

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 88, 15.3.2021.

---
EXHIBIT 2.3

          Statement Under Oath of Principal Financial Officer Regarding
            Facts and Circumstances Relating to Exchange Act Filings

     In connection with the Annual Report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2001 of Grupo Financiero Galicia S.A. (the "Company") as filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Commission") on July 1, 2002
and as amended by Form 20-F/A on the date hereof (collectively, the "Report")
and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Pedro A. Richards, Managing Director and
principal financial officer of the Company, certify, that:

     (1)  the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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/ Pedro A. Richards
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                         Name:  Pedro A. Richards
                                         Title:   Managing Director
                                                  (Chief Financial Officer)
Date:  November 26, 2002
Randall Steven SPEARS, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-4116

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

January 16, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
# C_2019413EN.01005801.xml

| 9.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 413/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 413/58

---

Action brought on 30 September 2019 – Hasbro v EUIPO – Kreativni Dogadaji (MONOPOLY)

(Case T-663/19)

(2019/C 413/70)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Hasbro, Inc. (Pawtucket, Rhode Island, United States) (represented by: J. Moss, Barrister)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Kreativni Dogadaji d.o.o. (Zagreb, Croatia)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark MONOPOLY – European Union trade mark No 9 071 961

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 July 2019 in Case R 1849/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Failure to properly apply Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Failure to properly apply Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Violation of the applicant’s right to a fair hearing. |
| --- | --- |

—

Violation of the applicant’s right to a fair hearing.

---
Exhibit
16F




Auditors ́
Letter Regarding Change in Auditor
  October
7, 2010
  United
States Securities and Exchange Commission
 Washington,
D.C. 20549
  Ladies
and Gentlemen
  We were
previously principal accountants for Companhia de Bebidas das Américas – Ambev
and, under the date of April 12, 2010, we reported on the consolidated financial
statements of Companhia de Bebidas das Américas – Ambev as of and for the years
ended December 31, 2009 and 2008, and on the effectiveness of internal control
over financial reporting as of December 31, 2009. We were
dismissed effective upon the delivery of our audit report dated April 12,
2010.
  We have
read Companhia de Bebidas das Américas – Ambev revised statements included under
Item 16F of its Form 20-F/A and we agree with such statements.
  Very
truly yours,
 
  /s/ KPMG
Auditores Independentes
 KPMG
Auditores Independentes
 São
Paulo, Brazil
# C_2021490EN.01001501.xml

| 6.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 490/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 490/15

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 6 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Salzburg — Austria) — CS v Eurowings GmbH

(Case C-613/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Air transport - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Article 5(3) - Common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of cancellation or long delay of flights - Exemption from the obligation to pay compensation - Concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ - Strike by airline staff - Strike by the staff of a subsidiary in solidarity with the staff of the parent company)

(2021/C 490/14)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesgericht Salzburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: CS

Respondent: Eurowings GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, must be interpreted as meaning that strike action intended to assert workers’ demands with regard to salary and/or social benefits, which is entered into upon a call by a trade union of the staff of an operating air carrier in solidarity with strike action which was launched against the parent company of which that air carrier is a subsidiary, which is observed by a category of the staff of that subsidiary whose presence is necessary to operate a flight and which continues beyond the period originally announced by the trade union which called the strike, in spite of the fact that an agreement has been reached in the meantime with the parent company, is not covered by the concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ within the meaning of that provision.

---

(1)  OJ C 35, 1.2.2021.

---
1373.

#### PENDERGRAST *v.*GREESON.

'While ordinarily a jury should attach more weight to positive than to negative testimony, yet they are not absolutely • bound to do so. Therefore, where the existence of a material and controlling fact in a case is strongly affirmed by positive testimony, and denied by other testimony, although somewhat negative in character, the question is issuable, and can not be determined by the court as a matter of law.

Attachment, from city court of Abbeville — Judge Nicholson. ■ July 18, 1908.

Argued November 24, 1908. —

Decided April 15, 1909.

*Max E. Land, Walter F. Hall,*for plaintiff in error.

*Hal Lawson,*contra.

Hill, C. J.

This is a suit on a note, for principal, interest, ¡and attorney’s fees. On the conclusion of the evidence the court ■directed a verdict for the plaintiff for the full amount sued for. In this court the plaintiff in error expressly abandons all the assignments of error, except as to the direction of a verdict for attorney’s fees. He contends that under the plea and the evidence, the question as to whether he had been served with the statutory notice claiming attorney’s fees was issuable, and that the direction of a verdict for attorney’s fees was therefore erroneous. The ■ evidence on this subject, briefly stated, is as follows: The attorney for the plaintiff testified that he prepared a written notice in form for attorney’s fees and gave it to his client, with direction to have it timely served on the defendant. The client testified, that on the same day he received the notice from his attor*48ney he delivered it to one Livingston, with direction to serve it on the defendant, and that Livingston immediate^' thereafter reported to him that he had served it on the defendant. Livingston also testified, that he remembered serving on the defendant the paper given to him by the plaintiff, bnt did not remember the date on which- he served it, and did not know what the paper was. The defendant testified: “I don’t think Livingston served any notice of attorney’s fees on me in this case; that is my recollection. I haven’t any paper that he served on me that I remember.” While the testimony of the defendant was vague, indefinite, and uncertain, it can not be said that it was not sufficient to make the question of service of the notice of attorney’s fees issuable, and, although fragile, it is of sufficient strength to be submitted to the jury. The want of recollection by some men of the existence of a fact might be considered as weighty as the positive recollection of some other men that the fact did not exist. The weight of the testimony, whether positive or negative, is for the jury, and ordinarily they are not bound to accept positive in preference to negative testimony. *Hunter*v. *State,*4 *Ga. App.*761 (62 S. E. 466). Whether the defendant was served with the notice of attorney’s foes should have been submitted to the jury. The judgment is affirmed, on condition that the defendant in error write off from the judgment the amount of attorney’s fees. Otherwise, the judgment should be reversed.

*Judgment affirmed, on condition.*
Dontravis SMITH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-3095

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed December 21, 2018

Dontravis Smith, Lake City, pro se.

No Appearance for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Dontravis Smith appeals the summary denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion for postconviction relief, in which he alleged a claim of newly-discovered evidence. In his motion, Smith alleged that Rakim Sharpe, one of the two robbery victims, had recanted his testimony identifying Smith as one of the perpetrators. Sharpe's affidavit was attached to the motion. Significantly, in his affidavit, Sharpe averred that the other victim, Willie Lofton, had admitted giving false identification testimony at trial. Because the record does not conclusively show that Smith is not entitled to relief, and the nature of the alleged newly-discovered evidence warranted an evidentiary hearing, we reverse.

At trial, Sharp testified, with an admitted degree of uncertainty, that Smith was one of the individuals who had robbed him. By contrast, Lofton's identification testimony was unequivocal. The alleged newly-discovered evidence, as set forth in Sharpe's affidavit, would arguably undermine his identification testimony at trial, as well as impeach Lofton's trial testimony. Furthermore, the affidavit was not "inherently incredible" nor "obviously immaterial." *See* *Davis v. State* , 26 So.3d 519, 526 (Fla. 2009). Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court erred in failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing on Smith's motion. *See* *Barros v. State* , 254 So.3d 1186, 1187 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018) (holding evidentiary hearing required to evaluate testimony of recanting witness where witness' affidavit not inherently incredible nor obviously immaterial); *Floyd v. State* , 202 So.3d 137, 140 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (holding evidentiary hearing required even though alleged newly-discovered evidence would be admissible only for impeachment purposes; affidavits were consistent with appellant's theory of defense that witnesses who testified at trial had knowingly given false testimony).

REVERSED and REMANDED for an evidentiary hearing.

EVANDER, EISNAUGLE and HARRIS, JJ., concur.
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Carl Storck and Vicki Storck, Appellant s

No. 06

- 16

- 00001

- CV v.

Tres Lagos Property Owners Association, Inc., Appellee Appeal from the 62nd District Court of Franklin County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 10,964 ). Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Morriss, Justice Moseley and Justice Burgess participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find reversible error in the order of the trial

court below. T he petition for intervention was filed after the trial court’s plenary power expired

and was, therefore, u ntimely

. W e vacate the December 4, 2015, order and dismiss this appeal.

We further order that the appell ee
, Tres Lagos Property Owners Association, Inc. , pay all

cos ts of this appeal.

RENDERED OCTOBER 7, 2016

BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
EX-10.18




 Exhibit 10.18 

AMENDMENT TO THE 
 FIRST
BANK 2010 EQUITY BASED INCENTIVE PLAN 
 THIS AMENDMENT (this “Amendment”) to the 2010 Equity Based
Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) of FirstBank (the “Bank”) was approved and adopted by the Administrators of the Plan on September 1, 2016. 
  

	 	1.	 A new subsection (d) shall be added to Section 6 of the Plan: 



“Following the effective date of the Company’s initial public offering of its Common Stock (the “IPO”) and
contingent upon completion of the IPO, and notwithstanding anything in the Plan to the contrary, the Company may permit Participants to elect to receive, on a one-for-one basis, a share of Common Stock for each EBI Unit vested to such Participant,
instead of receiving an amount in cash for each EBI Unit vested to such Participant. If so permitted by the Company, a Participant must make such election at the time and in the form provided by the Company, and pursuant to such terms and conditions
as specified by the Company. Any such election shall not be made earlier than the effective date of the Form S-8 registration statement with respect to the issuance of Common Stock under this Plan. A total of 20,200 shares of the Company’s
Common Stock shall be reserved for issuance pursuant to this Section 6(d). For the avoidance of doubt, nothing in this Section 6(d) shall change the Payment Date for any EBI Units.” This new subsection (d) shall be effective as
of the effective date of the IPO. 
  

	 	2.	 Except as expressly amended hereby, the terms of the Plan shall be and remain unchanged and the Plan as
amended hereby shall remain in full force and effect. 


 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, being the
Administrators of the Plan of the Bank, have executed this instrument as of the date and time indicated above. 
  

			
	 ADMINISTRATORS OF THE PLAN

		
	 By:
	 	 /s/ Christopher T. Holmes

		 	 Christopher T. Holmes

		 	 President and Chief Executive Officer

		
		 	AND                    
		
		 	 /s/ James W. Ayers

		 	 James W. Ayers

		 	 Chairman
# C_2022119EN.01000502.xml

| 14.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 119/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 119/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 January 2022 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-51/20) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - State aid - Aid declared unlawful and incompatible with the internal market - Obligation of recovery - Judgment of the Court establishing the failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Non-compliance - Failure to comply with the obligation to recover unlawful and incompatible aid - Financial penalties - Proportionality and dissuasiveness - Periodic penalty payment - Lump sum - Ability to pay - Weighting of the Member State’s voting rights in the European Parliament)

(2022/C 119/07)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouchagiar and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: K. Boskovits and A. Samoni-Rantou, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to adopt all the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of 9 November 2017, Commission v Greece (C-481/16, not published, EU:C:2017:845), the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 260(1) TFEU; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt all the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of 9 November 2017, Commission v Greece (C-481/16, not published, EU:C:2017:845), the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 260(1) TFEU;

| 2. | Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the European Commission a periodic penalty payment in the amount of EUR 4 368 000 per six-month period from the date of delivery of the present judgment up to the date of full compliance with the judgment of 9 November 2017, Commission v Greece (C-481/16, not published, EU:C:2017:845); |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the European Commission a periodic penalty payment in the amount of EUR 4 368 000 per six-month period from the date of delivery of the present judgment up to the date of full compliance with the judgment of 9 November 2017, Commission v Greece (C-481/16, not published, EU:C:2017:845);

| 3. | Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay to the European Commission a lump sum of EUR 5 500 000; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay to the European Commission a lump sum of EUR 5 500 000;

| 4. | Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 87, 16.3.2020.

---
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Floods

Filters

              - science_science(9)
              - products_data(4)
              - products_maps(1)
              - products_publications(67)
              - products_web_tools(2)
              - multimedia_image(4)
              - multimedia_image-141771(3)
              - multimedia_image-141776(1)
              - multimedia_video(1)
              - multimedia_video-149195(1)
              - news_news-149245(1)
              - news_news-149248(1)
              - news_news-149250(1)
              - news_newsletters(2)
              - news_other_news(2)
              - (-)connect_staff_profiles(1)
              - other_basic-42(1)

## By Location

              - alaska(3)
              - arizona(5)
              - arkansas(5)
              - colorado(6)
              - connecticut(1)
              - delaware(1)
              - florida(2)
              - georgia(1)
              - illinois(2)
              - kansas(1)
              - louisiana(1)
              - maine(2)
              - maryland(1)
              - massachusetts(7)
              - michigan(2)
              - minnesota(2)
              - missouri(1)
              - montana(3)
              - nebraska(1)
              - new hampshire(1)
              - new jersey(2)
              - new mexico(1)
              - new york(7)
              - north carolina(1)
              - north dakota(1)
              - oregon(3)
              - (-)pennsylvania(1)
              - puerto rico(1)
              - texas(3)
              - utah(2)
              - vermont(1)
              - virginia(1)
              - washington(3)
              - wisconsin(6)
              - wyoming(1)

## By Year

              - 2024(1)

staff profileMark A Roland