alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JULY 23, 2015

NO. 03-13-00381-CR

Anthony Boyd Robertson, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 22ND DISTRICT COURT OF HAYS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUSTICES GOODWIN AND BOURLAND

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE BOURLAND

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction entered by the trial court. Having reviewed 

the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the 

trial court’s judgment of conviction. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment of 

conviction. Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs 

is made.
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


C\_2021139EN.01000701.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 20.4.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 139/7 |

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.10236 — Goldman Sachs/Oikos)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 139/06)

1.

On 8 April 2021, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [(1)](#ntr1-C_2021139EN.01000701-E0001).

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Goldman Sachs Group, Inc (‘Goldman Sachs’, USA), |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Oikos Holding GmbH (‘Oikos’, Germany). |

Goldman Sachs’acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of Oikos.

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares in Oikos.

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | for Goldman Sachs: global investment banking, securities and investment management. It provides a range of banking, securities and investment services worldwide, |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | for Oikos: planning, construction, development, manufacturing and selling of prefabricated houses. |

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.

Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [(2)](#ntr2-C_2021139EN.01000701-E0002) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.

4.

The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:

M.10236 — Goldman Sachs/Oikos

Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:

Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu

Fax +32 22964301

Postal address:

| |
| --- |
| European Commission |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

---

[(1)](#ntc1-C_2021139EN.01000701-E0001)  [OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOL_2004_024_R_TOC) (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

[(2)](#ntc2-C_2021139EN.01000701-E0002)  [OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOC_2013_366_R_TOC).

---
Exhibit 10(l)







EXHIBIT 10(l)




EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT EXTENSION




THIS EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT EXTENSION (this “Agreement Extension”) is entered into effective the
30 day of March, 2010, by and between The Franklin Savings and Loan Company, a savings and loan
association organized under the laws of the State of Ohio (the “Employer”), and Gretchen J. Schmidt
(the “Employee”).



WITNESSETH:




WHEREAS, the Employee is currently employed as the President of the Employer; and



WHEREAS, the Employer and the Employee are parties to an employment agreement dated July 1,
2006 and amended December 30, 2008 (the “Employment Agreement”); and



WHEREAS, the current expiration date of the Employment Agreement is March 31, 2012; and



WHEREAS, Section 1 of the Employment Agreement provides that the Employer’s Board of Directors
may extend the term of the Employment Agreement; and



WHEREAS, as a result of the skill, knowledge, performance and experience of the Employee, the
Board of Directors of the Employer has determined that the Employment Agreement should be extended;
and



WHEREAS, the Employee desires to continue to serve as the President of the Employer and
consents to the extension of the Employment Agreement;



NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and mutual covenants herein contained, the
Employer and the Employee hereby agree as follows:



1. Extension of Term of Employment Agreement. The term of the Employment Agreement is
hereby extended and the Employment Agreement shall terminate on March 31, 2013 (the “Extended
Term”).



2. Effect of Prior Agreements. All of the terms and conditions of the Employment
Agreement shall remain in full force and effect during the Extended Term.



[REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK; SIGNATURES FOLLOW]




 


 









 








IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Employer has caused this Agreement Extension to be executed by its
duly authorized officer, and the Employee has consented to and signed this Agreement Extension,
each as of the date first above written.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	EMPLOYER:	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Attest:	 	THE FRANKLIN SAVINGS AND LOAN COMPANY	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	/s/ Margaret Havlin
 


	 	By:

	 	/s/ Daniel T. Voelpel
 

Name:  Daniel T. Voelpel
	 	 
	 

	 	 
	 	Title:    Senior Vice President	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Attest:	 	EMPLOYEE:	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	/s/ Margaret Havlin	 	/s/ Gretchen J. Schmidt
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Nicholas R. Schacht, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the quarterly report of Learning Tree International, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarter December 28, 2007 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of the operations of Learning Tree International, Inc.

|                       |  |  |  |     |  |                         |  |        |  |                        
|---------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | ----------------------- |  | ------ |  | -----------------------
|                       |  |  | 
|Date: February 6, 2008 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ NICHOLAS R. SCHACHT
|                       |  |  |  |     |  |                         |  | Name:  |  | Nicholas R. Schacht    
|                       |  |  |  |     |  |                         |  | Title: |  | Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the
Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

United States Coast GuardU.S. Department of Homeland Security

Search
Search

Search

-  Home    -  News Room             
  -  Reserve             
  -  Forcecom             
  -  Operations             
  -  Mission Support             
  -  Atlantic Area             
  -  Pacific Area             
  -  History 
-  Units    -  Organization             
  -  Coast Guard A to Z             
  -  Atlantic Area             
  -  Pacific Area             
  -  Force Readiness Command 
-  Leadership    -  Commandant’s Initiatives             
  -  Senior Leadership             
  -  Deputy Commandant for Operations             
  -  Deputy Commandant for Mission Support             
  -  Atlantic Area Commander             
  -  Pacific Area Commander             
  -  Reserve             
  -  Auxiliary 
-  Resources    -  CG Support             
  -  Legal      -  JoinCGJAG             
    -  Legal_Assistance        -  Find-A-Legal-Assistance-Lawyer             
      -  FAQ 
  -  Civil Rights             
  -  Work-Life             
  -  Administrative Law Judges      -  Virtual Hearing 
  -  Newsroom             
  -  Family             
  -  Library             
  -  CG Web Mail             
  -  Return 2 Service      -  FAQ 
-  Community    -  Art Program             
  -  Girl Scouts / Boy Scouts      -  Eagle Scout Recognition 
  -  Coast Guard Band             
  -  Coast Guard Cities             
  -  Honor Guard             
  -  JROTC      -  NEWS 
  -  Special Programs      -  Industry Academy        -  Contacts             
      -  2018 
  -  Trademark             
  -  Resources      -  History             
    -  CGC Eagle 
-  Mariners    -  National Vessel Documentation Center             
  -  National Maritime Center             
  -  National Pollution Funds Center      -  NRD        -  NRD_FAQs             
      -  Trustee_Links             
      -  NRD_DOCS             
      -  About_NRD_Funding 
  -  Boating Safety 
-  doing business		 
-  Join		 
-  Recruiting		 
-  contact		 
-  About		 

HomeHomeUnitsUnit Display

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# Heartland (D8) 

#### 

(504) 589-6225 - For maritime emergency use only 

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                       1,261,236
<SECURITIES>                                16,699,420
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,824,115
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  1,012,700
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            21,556,803
<PP&E>                                      22,750,473
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,215,730
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              42,317,494
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,776,050
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        82,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  35,107,084
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                42,317,494
<SALES>                                     19,022,001
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            20,646,220
<CGS>                                       11,411,917
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               17,655,056
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             (787,052)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,778,216
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,102,881
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,675,335
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .32
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .32
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection
with the Annual Report of China BAK Battery, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the
Company), on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2006, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report),
Xiangqian Li, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, does hereby certify,
pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. §
1350), that to his 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 result of operations of the Company.

|                 | /s/   Xiangqian Li       
|---------------- | -------------------------
|                 |                          
|                 | Xiangqian Li             
|                 | Chief   Executive Officer
|December 8, 2006 |                          

---
J

- A24009

- 15

NON

- PRECEDENTIAL DECISION

- SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENN SYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA Appellee

v.

CARLOS J. F. FIGUEROA

- FAGOT

Appellant No. 1270 EDA 2014

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence April 4

, 2014

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP

- 51

- CR

- 0009312

- 2012

BEFORE: PANELLA, J., WECHT, J. and STRASSBURGER  , J.

DISSENTING STATEMENT BY PANELLA, J. FILED DECEMBER 14, 2015

I dissent. I would affirm the three convictions. The trial court opinion

ably addresses the issues raised on appeal. Accordingly, I would affirm the

judgment of sentence based o n Judge Dubow’s well

- written opinion. See

T rial Court Opinion, 10/31/14, at 1

- 9, 12

- 14.

____________________________________________

 Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 20, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-50111

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

FERNANDO ESCOBEDO-GUERRERO,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. A-02-CR-257-ALL-SS

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

Before JONES, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

 Fernando Escobedo-Guerrero appeals the sentence imposed

following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United

States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. 

Escobedo-Guerrero contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(b) define separate offenses. He argues that the prior

conviction that resulted in his increased sentence is an element

of a separate offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should have

been alleged in his indictment. Escobedo-Guerrero maintains that
No. 03-50111

-2-

he pleaded guilty to an indictment which charged only simple

reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that his sentence

exceeds the two-year maximum term of imprisonment which may be

imposed for that offense.

In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235

(1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of

separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing

provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. 

Escobedo-Guerrero acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres, but asserts that the decision has been cast

into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). 

He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. 

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres

“unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule

it.” Dabeit, 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and

citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of

filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks

that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED. 

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Terrance E. Mason, Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (De Lury, J.), rendered July 7, 1983, convicting him of attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and sentencing him to a term of 1 Vi to 3 years’ imprisonment.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by reducing the defendant’s sentence from a term of imprisonment of lVi to 3 years to a term of imprisonment of 1 to 3 years. As so modified, the judgment is affirmed.

*338By pleading guilty, the defendant waived his right to contest the denial of his motion pursuant to CPL 30.30 *(see, People v O'Brien,*56 NY2d 1009; *People v Suarez,*55 NY2d 940). Further, by failing to move to withdraw his plea prior to sentencing, the issue of whether that motion was properly denied is not preserved for appellate review *(see, People v Pellegrino,*60 NY2d 636).

As the defendant asserts, and the People concede, the defendant’s sentence of *IV2*to 3 years on his conviction was illegal, as attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree is not a class D armed felony offense *(see,*Penal Law § 70.02 [4]). The minimum sentence should have been one year *(see,*Penal Law § 70.00 [3] [b]). Thompson, J. P., Niehoff, Weinstein and Spatt, JJ., concur.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

MEMORANDUM OPINION

04

- 24

- 00 519

- CV

IN RE Sadie MORANTE AND O’REILLY AUTO ENTE R PRISES, LLC , Relator s

Original Proceeding 1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez

, Chief Justice 2

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Beth Watkins , Justice

Delivered and Filed: September 25, 2024

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On August 6 , 2024, relator s filed a petition for a writ of mandamus and a n emergency

motion for temporary relief

.

This court has determined the relators are not entitled to the relief sought. Therefore, the

petition for a writ of mandamus is DENIED. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.8.

PER CURIAM

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 20 22

- CI

- 2375 2

, in the 28 8 th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas,

the Honorable Monique Diaz presiding.

2 Chief Justice Rebeca C. Martinez dissents to the denial of the petition without requesting a response.
Exhibit 32.1

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 Annual Report of Q.E.P. Co., Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ending
February 28, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Lewis Gould, Chairman and 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:



| | (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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                    
|------------------------------------
|/s/ Lewis Gould                     
|Lewis Gould                         
|Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

May 29, 2009
#### PIPER v. NEW YORK CENT. & H. R. R. CO.

(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.

May 14, 1894.)

Action by Elwin S. Piper against the New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Company.

Jackson & Burr (Joseph A. Burr, of counsel), for appellant.

Saunders, Webb & Worcester (Thorndike Saunders and Edwin D. Worcester, Jr., of counsel), for respondent.

DYKMAN, J.

This is a motion for a reargument of the appeal to the general term in this action. The basis of the application is that the question involved was misapprehended by the court, and the point in issue is stated in the points of the defendant upon this motion to be that the plaintiff, in view of the darkness, and of the knowledge which he had that the door was open, was bound to take extra precautions, and that, so far from taking such precautions, he went along in the usual way. It cannot be said fairly that the question was overlooked by the court in deciding the appeal. What we decided was that the questions involved were for the determination of the jury, and • upon that subject this language was used in the opinion: “We think that it cannot be said, as a matter of law, that the plaintiff, upon discovering the darkness of the toilet room, should have returned to the body of the car, found the porter, and waited until the room was lighted. The question of contributory negligence, therefore, was for the jury. The defendant’s negligence was also for the jury.” The case doubtless lies close to the border line, and we may be in error, but we have not been negligent. The' opinion of the court shows that the case was fully examined, and carefully ■considered, and we can do no more. The motion for a reargument should be denied, with $10 costs and disbursements.