alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                Exhibit 10.14(b)

                            MILLENNIUM CHEMICALS INC.

                                  Amendment To

                          THE MILLENNIUM CHEMICALS INC.
                    SUPPLEMENTAL SAVINGS AND INVESTMENT PLAN

                                  (the "Plan")


         The Plan shall be, and it hereby is, amended effective June 1, 2002 as
follows:

1.       Section 2.3 Change in Control

         Amend clause (d) of Section 2.3 to read in its entirety as follows:

         "(d) the stockholders of the Company approve a plan of complete
         liquidation of the Company or the closing of the sale or disposition by
         the Company of all or substantially all of the Company's assets other
         than the sale or disposition of all or substantially all of the assets
         of the Company to one or more Subsidiaries (as defined below) of the
         Company or to a person or persons who beneficially own, directly or
         indirectly, at least fifty percent (50%) or more of the combined voting
         power of the outstanding voting securities of the Company at the time
         of the sale or disposition; provided, however, (y) the sale or
         disposition of all or any part of the Company's interests in Equistar
         Chemicals LLP ("Equistar") (and all subsequent sales and dispositions
         of any securities or assets received as proceeds thereof, or as
         proceeds of proceeds) shall not be deemed to constitute a Change in
         Control, and (z) if the Company sells or disposes of all or any part
         of the Company's interests in Equistar indirectly (either through the
         sale or other disposition of any entity that owns, directly or
         indirectly, all or any part of the Company's interests in Equistar, or
         otherwise), then the sale or disposition of the Company's interests in
         Equistar (and all subsequent sales and dispositions of any securities
         or assets received as proceeds thereof, or as proceeds of proceeds)
         shall be ignored and disregarded in determining whether any such Change
         in Control has occurred. By way of illustration, if an indirect
         subsidiary of the Company that owns the Company's interests in Equistar
         together with certain other assets is sold, then, in determining
         whether a Change in Control has occurred, all relevant determinations
         shall be made pursuant to the assumption that (y) such subsidiary owns
         only such other assets, and (z) neither such subsidiary nor the Company
         owns, either directly or indirectly, the interests in Equistar.
         "Subsidiary" shall have the meaning set forth in Section 424 of the
         Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and the term shall also include any
         partnership, limited liability company or other business entity if the
         Company owns directly or indirectly, securities or other ownership
         interests representing at least fifty percent (50%) of the ordinary
         voting power or equity or capital interests of such entity."
FOSTER-LONG v. DURHAM COUNTY.

No. 303P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 29, 2006.

Dawn Dillon Raynor, Jennifer T. Gottsegen, Raleigh, for Durham County.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 14th day of June 2006 by Plaintiff for Sanctions:

"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference this the 29th day of June 2006."
Opinion issued October 4, 2012

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-12-00582-CV

———————————

YVONNE ANDERSON, Appellant

V.

BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING, L.L.C., A DELAWARE LIMITED 

LIABILITY COMPANY, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 2

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1009889

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In this forcible-detainer action, appellant, Yvonne Anderson, appeals from 

the trial court’s judgment of possession in favor of appellee, Bayview Loan 
2

Servicing, L.L.C., a Delaware Limited Liability Company.1 On July 31, 2012, 

Bayview Loan Servicing filed a motion to dismiss Anderson’s appeal as moot, 

stating that Anderson failed to file a supersedeas bond, a writ of possession was 

issued, and Bayview Loan Servicing took possession of the subject property on 

July 19, 2012. See TEX. PROP. CODE ANN. § 24.007 (West Supp. 2011).

Although the failure to supersede a forcible-detainer judgment does not 

divest an appellant of the right to appeal, an appeal from a forcible-detainer action 

becomes moot if the appellant is no longer in possession of the property, unless the 

appellant holds and asserts “a potentially meritorious claim of right to current, 

actual possession” of the property. Marshall v. Housing Authority of the City of 

San Antonio, 198 S.W.3d 782, 786–87 (Tex. 2006); see Wilhelm v. Fed. Nat. 

Mortg. Ass’n, 349 S.W.3d 766, 768 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, no 

pet.); Gallien v. Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp., No. 01-07-00075-CV, 2008 WL 

4670465, at *2–4 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Oct. 23, 2008, pet. dism’d 

w.o.j.).

On August 16, 2012, the Clerk of this Court requested a response from 

Anderson, by August 27, 2012, to Bayview Loan Servicing’s motion to dismiss. 

 

1

In her notice of appeal, appellant states that she is appealing “the determination of 

the parties [sic] rights to the real property at issue.” Nevertheless, in a forcibledetainer action, “the only issue shall be as to the right to actual possession; and the 

merits of the title shall not be adjudicated.” TEX. R. CIV. P. 746; see Wilhelm v. 

Fed. Nat. Mortg. Ass’n, 349 S.W.3d 766, 768–69 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th 

Dist.] 2011, no pet.).
3

Anderson has not filed a response and, therefore, has failed to assert a potentially 

meritorious claim of right to current, actual possession of the property. See 

Marshall, 198 S.W.3d at 787; Wilhelm, 349 S.W.3d at 768; Rady v. CitiMortgage, 

Inc., No. 03-11-00734-CV, 2012 WL 753128, at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin March 9, 

2012, no pet.). Because Anderson is no longer in possession of the property and 

has not asserted a potentially meritorious claim of right to current, actual 

possession, Anderson’s appeal is moot. See Wilhelm, 349 S.W.3d at 769.

Accordingly, we grant appellee’s motion, vacate the county court’s 

judgment, and dismiss the appeal as moot. See Marshall, 198 S.W.3d at 785, 787, 

790; Wilhelm, 349 S.W.3d at 769. We dismiss all other pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Higley, and Sharp.
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5569 

To extend for 5 years the EB–5 regional center pilot program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 10, 2008 

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To extend for 5 years the EB–5 regional center pilot 

program. 

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

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF EB–5 REGIONAL CENTER PILOT 

4 PROGRAM. 

5 Section 610(b) of the Departments of Commerce, 

6 Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies 

7 Appropriations Act, 1993 (8 U.S.C. 1153 note) is amend8 ed by striking ‘‘for 15 years’’ and inserting ‘‘for 20 years’’. 

Æ 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
# C_2017138EN.01000101.xml

| 3.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 138/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 138/1

---

COUNCIL DECISION

of 25 April 2017

renewing the Governing Board of the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training

(2017/C 138/01)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 337/75 of 10 February 1975 establishing the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training, and in particular Article 4 thereof (1),

1

Having regard to the nominee submitted to the Council by the Commission as regards the Employees’ representatives,

Whereas:

| (1) | By its Decisions of 14 July 2015 (2) and of 14 September 2015 (3), the Council appointed the members of the Governing Board of the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training for the period from 18 September 2015 to 17 September 2018. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

By its Decisions of 14 July 2015 (2) and of 14 September 2015 (3), the Council appointed the members of the Governing Board of the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training for the period from 18 September 2015 to 17 September 2018.

2

3

| (2) | A member’s seat on the Governing Board of the Centre in the category of representatives of Employees’ organisations has become vacant for Latvia as a result of the resignation of Ms Ruta PORNIECE. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

A member’s seat on the Governing Board of the Centre in the category of representatives of Employees’ organisations has become vacant for Latvia as a result of the resignation of Ms Ruta PORNIECE.

| (3) | The members of the Governing Board of the aforementioned Centre should be appointed for the remainder of the current term of office, which expires on 17 September 2018, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The members of the Governing Board of the aforementioned Centre should be appointed for the remainder of the current term of office, which expires on 17 September 2018,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The following person is hereby appointed member of the Governing Board of the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training for the remainder of its term of office, which runs until 17 September 2018:

REPRESENTATIVES OF EMPLOYEES’ ORGANISATIONS

| LATVIA | Ms Linda ROMELE |
| --- | --- |

LATVIA

Ms Linda ROMELE

Article 2

This Decision shall be published, for information, in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Official Journal of the European Union

Done at Luxembourg, 25 April 2017.

For the Council

The President

I. BORG

---

(1)  OJ L 39, 13.2.1975, p. 1.

1

(2)  OJ C 232, 16.7.2015, p. 2.

2

(3)  OJ C 305, 16.9.2015, p. 2.

3

---
### Nebraska Court of Appeals Memorandum Opinions

NOT Selected for Posting to Court Website

(r eleased the week prior to February 12, 2019 

### )

The following memorandum opinions were filed by the Nebraska Court of

Appeals and can be viewed using SSCALES :



### None Available

The above

- listed memorandum opinions c an be viewed online through the

appellate court case search available by subscription through Nebra ska.gov:

http://www.nebraska.gov/subscriber/

.

Current subscribers to Nebraska.gov can search appellate court cases here:

http s ://www.nebraska.gov/courts/s c cales/

.
STATE v. Dorsey Irvin HADDEN.

No. 102P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 6, 2006.

Bruce T. Cunningham, Jr., Southern Pines, for Dorsy I. Hadden.

Ronald L. Moore, District Attorney, for State.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 2nd day of March 2006 by Attorney General to Dismiss Petition for Writ of Certiorari:

"Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference this the 6th day of April 2006."
EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATION WITH RESPECT TO QUARTERLY REPORT OF

GOLDEN NUGGET, INC.

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of title 18, United
States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Golden Nugget, Inc. (the Company), does hereby certify [, to such officers knowledge,] that:

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 (the Form 10-Q) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in the Form 10-Q.

Date: August 14, 2006



/s/ Tilman J. FertittaTilman J. Fertitta Chairman of the Board of Directors, President and Chief Executive Officer for Registrant and Landrys Restaurants, Inc. (Principal Executive Officer)/s/ Rick H. LiemRick H. Liem Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer for Registrant and Landrys Restaurants, Inc. (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)


[The foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Form 10-Q pursuant to Item 601
(b)(32) of Regulation S-K and Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Sections 1350, Chapter 63 of the Title 18, United States Code) and, accordingly, is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in
such filing.]
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the Court has deter mined that this

opinion s h ould not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

_________________

No. 95-20966

(Summary Calendar)

_________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ARNOLD JOSEPH FREDDIE,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court For the Southern District of Texas

(H-95-CR-125-1)

August 30, 1996

Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Arnold Joseph Freddie appeals his guilty-plea conviction for

using and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drugtrafficking offense in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). Freddie

argues that his guilty-plea conviction should be vacated because

there is not a sufficient factual basis for his plea in view of the-2-

Supreme Court’s interpretation of the term “use” in § 924(c) in

Bailey v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 116 S. Ct. 501, 133 L. Ed.

2d 472 (1995). B ailey redefined the term “use” of a firearm under

§ 924(c), but had no effect on our prior precedent regarding the

definition of the term “carry.” U nited States v. Riva s, 85 F.3d

193, 195 (5th Cir. 1996).

Freddie’s knowing transportation of the firearm in the vehicle

to protect himself and the drugs during the drug transaction

constitutes “carrying” within the meaning of § 924(c). S ee id

. at

195-96. Therefore, we AFFIRM Freddie’s conviction.
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE>                                           UT
<LEGEND>
     This schedule  contains summary  financial  information  extracted from the
consolidated  balance sheet of  MidAmerican  Energy  Company as of June 30,
1996, and the related  consolidated  statements of income and cash flows for the
six months  ended  June 30,  1996,  and is  qualified  in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<CIK>                         0000928576
<NAME>                        MidAmerican Energy Company
<MULTIPLIER>1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1996
<BOOK-VALUE>                                   PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                      2,633,316
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                    398,124
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         238,956
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                       404,677
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                 209,178
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 3,884,251
<COMMON>                                       801,439
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                      0
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            450,191
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 1,242,588
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          50,000
<PREFERRED>                                    78,577
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           1,109,683
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                             0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                      0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                 166,317
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                  392
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                      0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                    0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                               0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 1,236,694
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                  3,884,251
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      810,458
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                           53,364
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     640,675
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     694,039
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                        116,419
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                             11,226<F1>
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                 127,645
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       42,942
<NET-INCOME>                                   84,703
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                    4,661
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                  80,042
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                       60,440
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                      39,768
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                         172,650
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
<FN>
<F1>Tag 41 includes $10,438,000 of Income from Discontinued Operations, net of
income taxes.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-8045

AARON HOLSEY, Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus
MELANIE C. PEREIRA, individually, and as former deputy commissioner of corrections for Maryland at 6776 Reisterstown Road, Baltimore, Maryland 21215; SUPERVISOR, name unknown, Home Detention Unit, individually, and in official capacity at 2100 Guilford Avenue, Baltimore, Maryland 21218; STATE OF MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, corrections headquarters, 6776 Reisterstown Road, Baltimore, Maryland 21215; PATRICIA K. CUSHWA, individually, and as chairperson of the Maryland Parole Commission at 6776 Reisterstown Road, Baltimore, Maryland 21203; FRANK PAPPAS, individually, and as Maryland Parole Commissioner; MACEO WILLIAMS, individually and as Maryland Parole Commissioner; RALPH ROBINSON, individually, and as Facility Administrator for Baltimore City Pre-Release Facility, 926 Greenmount Avenue, Baltimore, MD 21202; D. THANIEL, individually, and as supervisor of classification department at Baltimore City Pre-Release Unit; SUSAN T. DONAHUE, individually, and as former supervisor of classification at Eastern Correctional Institution-annex, 30420 Revells Neck Road, Westover, Maryland 21890; ALVIN MCCOY; CARTER DONAWAY, individually, and as a work releasecounselor assigned to the Baltimore City PreRelease Unit; ELEU GATLING, individually, and as a work release counselor assigned to the Baltimore City Pre-Release Unit; C. WESTON,2 individually, and a work release counselor assigned to the Baltimore City Pre-Release Unit; MICHILE ANTHONY BLOUNT, Commissioner, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (CA01-898-JFM)
Submitted: April 17, 2002 Decided: May 22, 2002
Before WILKINS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Aaron Holsey, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, David Phelps Kennedy, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).3 PER CURIAM: Aaron Holsey appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Holsey v. Pereira , No. CA-01-898-JFM (D. Md. Nov. 28, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Order filed, January 10, 2018.

 In The

Court of Appeals 

For The

First District of Texas 

____________

NO. 01-17-00956-CV

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, Appellant

V.

CESAR RANGEL, Appellee

On Appeal from the 80th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case 2015-64114

ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case was due 12/28/2017. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.1. 

The court has not received a request to extend time for filing the record. The record has 

not been filed with the court. Because the reporter’s record has not been filed timely, we 

issue the following order.

We order Michelle Tucker, the official (or substitute) court reporter, to file the 

record in this appeal, if any, within 10 days of the date of this order.

PER CURIAM
STATE v. JOHNSON.

No. COA05-1085.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed May 16, 2006.

Certification Date June 5, 2006.

Case without published opinion. No error.
CARILLON ASSISTED LIVING, LLC v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Adult Care Licensure Section; and the State of North Carolina.

No. 54A06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 29, 2006.

Melissa L. Trippe, Special Deputy Attorney General, Thomas M. Woodward, Susan K. Hackney, Assistant Attorney Generals, for NCDHHS.

Jim W. Phillips, Jr., Forrest W. Campbell, Jr., Greensboro, Charles F. Marshall, III, Raleigh, for Carrillon Assistant Living.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition for discretionary review, filed by Respondents on the 6th day of February 2006 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 and the Appellate Rule 16(b) as to issues in addition to those presented as the basis for the dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the petition for discretionary review as to additional issues is

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 29th day of June 2006."

Accordingly, only those issues which are the basis of the dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeals shall be presented to this Court in briefs. The Respondents' new brief so limited in scope shall be filed with this Court not more that 30 days from the date of certification of this order.
ROBERTS v. McALLISTER.

No. 686A05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 25, 2006.

Ingrid K. Friesen, for Michael W. McAllister.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 25th day of January 2006 by Plaintiff for Extension of Time to File Brief:

"Motion Allowed. Plaintiff (David K. Trayford, M.D.) shall have up to and including the 13th day of February 2006 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court. By order of the Court in conference this the 24th day of January 2006."