alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### LIST v. PENNSYLVANIA.

ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA.

No. 984.

Decided December 10, 1888.

The death of the accused in a criminal case brought here by writ of error abates the suit.

The case is stated in the opinion.

*Mr. W P. Potter*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. W. D. Porter*for defendant in error.

Per curiam

: The’ death of George B. List, the plaintiff in error in this cause, having been suggested in a communication from counsel for defendant in error to the clerk, and it appearing to the court that this is a criminal case, it is considered by the court that this cause has abated. Therefore, it is ordered and adjudged by the court that the writ of error in this cause be, and the same is hereby,

*.Dismissed.*
<PAGE>




EXHIBIT 32.2

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

In connection with the Annual Report of MBT Financial Corp. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John L. Skibski,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as enacted 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 results of operations of the
Company.


/s/ John L. Skibski
John L. Skibski
Chief Financial Officer
March 14, 2005
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                       6,199,109
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,962,666
<ALLOWANCES>                                    30,000
<INVENTORY>                                  1,220,418
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            10,128,612
<PP&E>                                      28,636,997
<DEPRECIATION>                               6,742,410
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              32,789,353
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,936,817
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        78,194
<OTHER-SE>                                  34,251,159
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                32,789,353
<SALES>                                     14,086,086
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            14,947,829
<CGS>                                       10,527,033
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               14,164,792
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                233,146
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            233,146
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   233,146
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.03


</TABLE>
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, Jeffry
N. Quinn, Chief Executive Officer of Solutia Inc. (the “Company”), certify,
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, that to the best of my knowledge:




(1)  the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2008 (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.
  Dated:
May 12, 2008








/s/ Jeffry N.
Quinn


Jeffry N. Quinn


President,
Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board














A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
by Section 906, has been provided to Solutia Inc. and will be retained by
Solutia Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
# C_2021505EN.01000101.xml

| 15.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 505/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 505/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10437 – EDF / GEIH / SCI OPG AVENUE DE FRANCE)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 505/01)

On 11 November 2021, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10437. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10437. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
Amendment No. 2 Employment Agreement  for William Montalto dated 1 Sept 2007



 Exhibit 10.14 
 STERLING JEWELERS INC. 
 375 Ghent Road 
 Akron, Ohio 44333 
 September 1, 2007 
 Mr. William Montalto 
 Sterling Jewelers Inc. 
 375 Ghent Road 
 Akron, Ohio 44333 
 Dear Bill: 
 Reference is made to your amended and restated Employment Agreement with Sterling Jewelers Inc dated as of August 9, 2004 and amended on
January 25, 2006 (as amended, the “Employment Agreement”). Any capitalized term not defined herein shall have the meaning set forth in the Employment Agreement. 
 In accordance with Section 3(a) of the Employment Agreement, as of May 1, 2007, the Base Salary has been increased, so that the reference in Section 3(a)(i) of the Employment Agreement to
“$525,000 per annum” shall be deleted and replaced with “$565,000 per annum”. In addition, beginning with the performance period commencing on February 4, 2007 the Employment Agreement shall be amended so that the
“Annual Bonus” has been increased so that the reference in Section 3 (a)(i) of the Employment Agreement to “up to 70% of Base Salary” shall be deleted and replaced with “up to 100% of Base Salary”. 
 Except as modified by this letter, the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect in accordance with its terms. 
 If you agree to the foregoing, please countersign the enclosed counterpart of this letter in the appropriate space below and return the signed copy to the
undersigned. 
  

			
	STERLING JEWELERS INC.
		
	By:	 	/s/ Mark S. Light
	Name:	 	Mark S. Light
	Title:	 	President and CEO

  

			
	Accepted and agreed as of the first date written above.
		
	By:	 	/s/ William Montalto
	Name:	 	William Montalto
# C_2021048EN.01000201.xml

| 11.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10100 — Stirling Square Capital Partners/TA Associates/NBS Group)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 48/02)

On 5 February 2021, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10100. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10100. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
#### JONES, Respondent, v. BLUNN et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, General Term, Fifth Department.

January 18, 1894.)

Action by Thomas Jones, as receiver of the Rheubottom & Teall Manufacturing Company, against Ferdinand S. M. Blunn and another.

No opinion. Judgment appealed from affirmed, with costs.
II 

Calendar No. 683 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5811 

[Report No. 111–359] 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 23, 2010 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs 

DECEMBER 9, 2010 

Reported by Mr. DORGAN, without amendment 

AN ACT 

To amend the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo and Alabama and 

Coushatta Indian Tribes of Texas Restoration Act to 

allow the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo Tribe to determine blood 

quantum requirement for membership in that tribe. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. BLOOD QUANTUM REQUIREMENT DETER4 MINED BY TRIBE. 

5 Section 108(a)(2) of the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo and 

6 Alabama and Coushatta Indian Tribes of Texas RestoraVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:36 Dec 10, 2010 Jkt 099200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H5811.RS H5811

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5811 RS

1 tion Act (25 U.S.C. 1300g–7(a)(2)) is amended to read 

2 as follows: 

3 ‘‘(2) any person of Tigua Ysleta del Sur Pueblo 

4 Indian blood enrolled by the tribe.’’. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 683 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5811 

[Report No. 111–359] 

AN ACT 

To amend the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo and Alabama 

membership in that tribe. to determine blood quantum requirement for tion Act to allow the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo Tribe and Coushatta Indian Tribes of Texas RestoraDECEMBER 9, 2010 

Reported without amendment 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

JON P. MOYER, DOC #C11849, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) ) Case No. 2D17-3918 STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed December 14, 2018. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Polk County; J. Kevin Abdoney, Judge. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Clayton R. Kaeiser, Special Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Helene S. Parnes, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

LaROSE, C.J., and VILLANTI and SLEET, JJ., Concur.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent

 v.

HIGINIO J. BARO-HERNANDEZ,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 514 MAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 7th day of January, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED.
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN

Honorable John C, Narburger County Attorney Fayette County La Orange, Texas

Dear Sir: -..

‘I._ opinion No. o-6172 ---,.. ~~~‘-,x. Rer Should the Asssssor~a fees for assessing taxes tar the ,gemral fund, jury fuW road ~r'an&bridge~fund, be oharged ” proportionately to these respeotlve funds, or should the general fund be required .H--- to\beals the entire aost for ~? ,i”

. asseesing taxes for these /.-- _r ‘., x., respective Aurds?

* This departam& has ‘given careful aonslderatlon to your request of reoept date iry%hloh you have asked our ahsver to the capt%Dmd quesB+on‘r,4fl ’

,; z., \ 1;’ / I;d’egk&lau Ho. .C-24&, this department held that in aouht3.b on’thWfee bas?S the fees for assessing taxes for various fuods ahoul&he borne by these reapeotlve funds, and that the 

### entire o&@ should not come from the general fund. Ye are &olcMng a.,oogk of this opFnlon vhioh lista the authorities and’.~giv’b@ &lie peason upon vhich this oonoluslon was based.

. P&ttt~ County, hovever, has a population of over 20,000 and the county officers are being paid on a salary baais. This raises the quaere of whether or not the same aonaluslon reached Fn our Opinion No. O-2499 applies to aountiea that are on salary basis. Ue think it does.

### Xonomblo John C. Xarbmyqar,Pagm 2



### Arti 39l20, 

### Se&ion 

### 1, uh&b imovideathat 0mtf 0m0ar, if3 a0mi88 Of a papulotirur -37 

### 20,000 -11 bo oalpella8tea

by aalarlaa, 

### ra8ds La parts *

. proviaad, 

### however, tht 

### the aaaba

### aor and 00iAt0r 

### of taxes rhrllaontuaw to ooilaot m r6tu for,

th0 

## b8320rttof the 0mfm-e shia~ Fundor~hRrei~ttarpawlaod?Qr.ollinaana 0aEni881ena

vhlobha la uuthar18~ war law to colq o t l . .m



### Seetlaa5 of Arti 39328, sups, read8 'a partz %!eo. 5. It aballba the duty of 

### all ofHorn 

### to chargoand colloot 

### in th8 4MaMr authoriaea by l8v all tua sml omlaalana vhlch are paxsltted by lav to k 

### aa8aand and oolloatad 

### for a11 offlola servlca parfolmad

by tbam. As a&i vhen such faea 0r8 colleotedthy shallk cbpuaitad in the offtaars*

Salery Fund, or ituala

providau3

'%n thrshat.

. . Wo fae1t&attheabom quotatwnsdammtrata that methoQ or ooll~otlng and beau-InI? of tin equlm* of co.5 

### P~8~~888ingt6xe. am the riolervhothmin sountieaantha 

### fm baais or In oountlu 00 the MlrnPy b8ata. rlotually, 

### the only dirtorenu 

### betvtlan the tvo lm3aa 

### ia that in tha fonser, tha 

### oftlolal keep# the money 

### n0elWd uatll a nquind mt lo 

### ruahedand twna ?Jmbalanoa tot&e aountr, and inthe latkr, t ho m o aey

lap lmedI a6 l



### peoialftmd, fsawhioh Wm aalariea ara paid.

XOK:fo 

### .;obert 3. Koch .baistant 

### f----y
JOHN EMANUEL OSEI , Appellant,

v. STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
CASE NO. 1D 16

- 5828

______ _______________________/ Opinion filed September 20 , 2017. An appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County

. Linda F. McCallum , Judge

. Caleb D. Rowland and William M. Blume of Blume and Rowland, PLLC , Jacksonville , for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Atto rney General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM. Appellant was convicted of possession of firearm by a convicted felon and aggravated assault and was sentenced to a total of 35 years in prison with consecutive mandatory minimum terms under the 10

- 20

- Life statute. Appellant2 did not challenge his sentences on direct appeal, case number 1D13

- 3414, and they became final on June 10, 2014, when the mandate issued that case. In May 2016, Appellant filed a motion for postconviction relief under Flori da Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 in which he argued that he was entitled to a new sentencing hearing because contrary to the trial court’s belief that it was required to impose the mandatory minimum terms consecutively , the Florida Supreme Court held in Williams v. State , 186 So. 3d 989, 993 (Fla. 2016), that consecutive mandatory minimum terms are “ permissible but not mandatory” where multiple firearm offenses are committed contemporaneously and multiple victims
are shot at. The trial court denied the motion, concluding that Williams does not apply retroactively . We agree with the trial court.
In Witt v. State , 387 So. 2d 922 (Fla. 1980), the Florida Supreme Court held that a change in the law does not apply retroactively "unless the change: (a)

emana tes from [the Florida Supreme Court] or the United States Supreme Court, (b) is constitutional in nature, and (c) constitutes a development of fundamental significance. ” A decision must satisfy all three of these prongs before it can be applied retroactiv ely to a case that w as already final. Wi lliams satisfies the first prong of Witt because it was decided by the Florida Supreme Court. But, Williams does not satisfy the second prong of Witt because it only involved an issue of statutory interpretation, se e Williams , 186 So.3 2d at 991

- 95 , and was not “constitutional in nature.” Accordingly, Williams does not apply retroactively to cases such as Appellant’s t hat were final when Williams was decided

. For these reasons, we affirm the order denying Appellant’s motion for postconviction relief.
AFFIRMED. ROBERTS, WETHERELL, and ROWE, JJ., CONCUR.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

SECOND MEMORANDUM ORDER ABATING APPEAL

Appellate case name: APTLA, LLC and GATESCO, Inc. v. The City of Baytown

Appellate case number: 01-20-00678-CV

Trial court case number: 1156692

Trial court: Harris County Civil Court at Law No. 1

On June 5, 2020, a fire damaged a building at the Laguna Azul Apartments, an apartment 

complex owned by APTLA, LLC and located in the City of Baytown. A dispute arose between the 

parties about the permits needed to repair the building. 

On September 10, 2020, the trial court granted the City of Baytown’s request for a 

temporary injunction, enjoining APTLA from conducting unpermitted construction and ordering 

APTLA to install a protective fence around the building. APTLA and Gatesco, Inc. appealed the 

trial court’s order granting a temporary injunction.

While the appeal was pending, the parties attended mediation, reached a tentative 

settlement, and executed an agreement to seek a ninety-day abatement of the proceedings in the 

County Court at Law No. 1 and an abatement of this appeal, while APTLA finishes repairing the 

building. On March 22, 2021, APTLA, Gatesco. and the City jointly moved to abate this appeal 

for 90 days pursuant to Rule 42.1(a)(2)(C) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.

On March 30, 2021, the Court granted the parties’ joint motion, abated the appeal, and 

treated the appeal as a closed case. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(2)(C). The Court also removed the 

appeal from the Court’s active docket. Id. The Court instructed the parties to file a report informing 

this Court about the status of the appeal and requested any necessary extension of the abatement 

if the parties had not finalized their settlement by June 29, 2021. 

On June 28, 2021, the parties filed a joint status report and moved to extend the abatement 

of this appeal until September 17, 2021.

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the parties’ joint motion. The appeal is abated, treated 

as a closed case, and removed from this Court’s active docket. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(2)(C). 

If the settlement has been finalized by September 17, 2021, the parties are instructed to file a 

motion to reinstate and dismiss the appeal in accordance with their settlement agreement. If the 
parties have not finalized their settlement by that date, they are instructed to file a report informing 

this Court about the status of the appeal and requesting any necessary extension of the abatement.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Justice Sarah Beth Landau________________

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: July 1, 2021______________________
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0001001865
<NAME>                        COAST RESORTS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         28,283
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  5,743
<ALLOWANCES>                                   777
<INVENTORY>                                    4,803
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               50,272
<PP&E>                                         533,099
<DEPRECIATION>                                 124,391
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 469,052
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          59,786
<BONDS>                                        274,974
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       15
<OTHER-SE>                                     111,145
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   469,052
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               194,113
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  112,541
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               45,415
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             12,178
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                27,063
<INCOME-TAX>                                   9,426
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            17,637
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   17,637
<EPS-BASIC>                                    11.93
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  11.93


</TABLE>