alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
The Attorney General of Texas 

April 6, 1978 

JOHN L. HILL 

Attorney General 

Honorable Barry Read 

Texas State Board of Examiners 

of Psychologists 

108 West 15th Street 

Austin, Texas 78701 

Opinion No. H- 115 1 

Re: Whether the Board of 

Examiners of Psychologists may 

consider postdoctoral courses in 

determining whether an applicant has met the educational 

requirements for licensing. 

Dear Mr. Read: 

You have requested our opinion regarding whether the Board of 

Examiners of Psychologists may consider postdoctoral courses in determining 

the eligibility of an applicant to take the examination for certification as a 

psychologist. Section ll of article 4512c, V.T.C.S., provides, in pertinent part: 

An applicant is qualified to take the examination for 

certification as a psychologist: 

(a) if he has received the doctoral degree based upon a 

program of studies whose content was primarily 

psychological from an accredited educational institution or its substantial equivalent in both subject 

matter and extent of training. . . . 

Thus, an individual may qualify to take the certification examination in one 

of two ways: (1) by earning a doctoral degree in psychology from an 

accredited institution; or (2) by receiving the “substantial equivalent” thereof. 

Since “substantial equivalent” is not defined in the statute, we believe 

that the Legislature intended to permit the Board to delineate its scope. The 

Board is empowered by section 8(a) to 

make all rules, not inconsistent with the Constitution 

and laws of this state, which are reasonably necessary 

for the proper performance of its duties and regulations of proceedings before it. 

p; 4672 
Honorable Barry Read - Page 2 (H-1151) 

In our opinion, the Board is clearly authorized to determine by rule the meaning of 

“substantial equivalent,” and to consider postdoctoral courses as fulfilling part of 

the requirement. 

Attorney General Opinion M-785 (1971) is not to the contrary. In that opinion, 

this office, held that, under section 15(b)(2) of article 4512c, the Board was not 

authorized to certify a person who had a masters’ degree based on a program which 

was not primarily psychological, but who had passed additional courses in 

psychology. Unlike section 11, section 15(b)(2) does not permit any substitution for 

its requirement. It is our opinion, therefore, that the Board of Examiners of 

Psychologists may consider postdoctoral courses as one factor in determining the 

eligibility of sn applicant to take the examination for certification as a 

psychologist. 

SUMMARY 

The Board of Examiners of Psychologists may consider 

postdoctoral courses as one factor in determining the 

eligibility .of an applicant to take the examination for 

certification as a psychologist. 

Attorney General of Texas 

APPROVED: 

Opinion Committee 

-p. 4673
EZELL, et al. v. HOSPITAL, et al.

No. 44A06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

February 15, 2006.

William H. Elam, Charlotte, for Pammy Ezell.

*611Elizabeth E. McConnell, Asheville, for Grace Hospital, et al.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 14th day of February 2006 by Plaintiff-Intervenor for Extension of Time to File Brief:

"Motion Denied. By order of the Court in conference this the 15th day of February 2006."
# L_2015120DE.01006201.xml

| 13.5.2015 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 120/62 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.5.2015

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 120/62

---

Berichtigung der Richtlinie 2013/35/EU des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates vom 26. Juni 2013 über Mindestvorschriften zum Schutz von Sicherheit und Gesundheit der Arbeitnehmer vor der Gefährdung durch physikalische Einwirkungen (elektromagnetische Felder) (20. Einzelrichtlinie im Sinne des Artikels 16 Absatz 1 der Richtlinie 89/391/EWG) und zur Aufhebung der Richtlinie 2004/40/EG

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 179 vom 29. Juni 2013
  )

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 179 vom 29. Juni 2013

Auf Seite 7, Artikel 5 Absatz 7:

anstatt:

„(7)   Ist Artikel 3 Absatz 3a Buchstabe a anwendbar, so werden spezifische Schutzmaßnahmen, wie zum Beispiel eine Kontrolle der Bewegungen, ergriffen.“

muss es heißen:

„(7)   Ist Artikel 3 Absatz 4 Buchstabe a anwendbar, so werden spezifische Schutzmaßnahmen, wie zum Beispiel eine Kontrolle der Bewegungen, ergriffen.“

.

---
STATE of North Carolina v. Hardin Eli ROSS, III.

No. 581A05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 3, 2006.

Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, ___ N.C.App. ___, 620 S.E.2d 33 (2005), finding no error in a judgment entered 5 February 2004 by Judge Evelyn W. Hill in Superior Court, Wake County. Heard in the Supreme Court 14 February 2006.

Roy Cooper, Attorney General, by Rudy Renfer, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Parrish, Smith & Ramsey, LLP, by Richard D. Ramsey, Winston-Salem, for defendant-appellant.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

*780Justice TIMMONS-GOODSON did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.
Exhibit
23.1





CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





We have
issued our reports dated March 4, 2009 (except for Note 16 as to which the
date is September 2, 2009), accompanying the consolidated financial statements
and schedule included in the Annual Report of INX Inc. on Form 10-K/A for the
year ended December 31, 2008. We hereby consent to the incorporation by
reference of said reports in the Registration Statements of INX Inc. on Forms
S-8 (File No. 333-41001, effective November 25, 1997; File No. 333-60320,
effective May 7, 2002; and File No. 333-150902, effective May 13, 2008) and
Forms S-3 (File No. 333-146632, effective January 22, 2008; File No. 333-146710,
effective February 6, 2008; and File No. 333-156113, effective February 3,
2009).





/s/ GRANT
THORNTON LLP





Houston,
Texas


September
2, 2009




81
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 42/2013Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 42/2013 of 17 January 2013 amending Regulation (EC) No 1510/96 concerning the classification            of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 42/2013                     

# of 17 January 2013

# amending Regulation (EC) No 1510/96 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the                           Common Customs Tariff(1), and in particular Article 9(1)(a) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)In order to ensure uniform application of the Combined Nomenclature annexed to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87, it is necessary                              to adopt measures concerning the classification of the goods referred to in the Annex to this Regulation.

(2)In accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 1510/96 of 26 July 1996 concerning the classification of certain goods in                              the Combined Nomenclature(2) plastic shells containing plastic spinning tops and chewing gum have been classified under CN code 9503 90 32 as regards                              the spinning top and under CN code 1704 10 99 as regards the chewing gum. As a consequence of the introduction of Note 4 to                              Chapter 95 of the Combined Nomenclature with effect from 1 January 2007, those items should be classified together as combinations                              having the essential character of a toy under CN code 9503 00 95.

(3)Regulation (EC) No 1510/96 should therefore be amended accordingly.

(4)The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

The first item of the table set out in the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1510/96 is replaced by the text set out in the Annex                     to this Regulation.                  

# Article 2U.K.

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*.                  

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 17 January 2013.

*For the Commission, On behalf of the President*,                           

Algirdas Šemeta                            

*Member of the Commission*                            

## ANNEXU.K.

1

OJ L 256, 7.9.1987, p. 1.                           

2

OJ L 189, 30.7.1996, p. 89.
(September 19, 2005)

#### AFBT-II, LLC, Respondent, v Country Village on Mooney Pond, Inc., et al., Appellants.

[801 NYS2d 366]

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract and conversion, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Underwood, J.) dated July 23, 2004, as granted the plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend the complaint to the extent of permitting it to add a cause of action against the defendants Lawrence T. Gresser and Joseph Simeone for money had and received.

Ordered that the appeal by the defendant Country Village on Mooney Pond, Inc., is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as that defendant is not aggrieved by the order appealed from *(see*CPLR 5511); and it is further;

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from by the defendants Lawrence T. Gresser and Joseph Simeone; and it is further;

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the plaintiff.

The determination whether to grant leave to amend a pleading is within the court’s discretion, and the exercise of that discretion will not lightly be disturbed *(see*CPLR 3025 [b]; *973
      *Naranjo v Star Corrugated Box Co., Inc.,*11 AD3d 438, 439 [2004]; *cf. Young v A. Holly Patterson Geriatric Ctr.,*17 AD3d 667 [2005]). The failure to offer an excuse for the delay does not alone bar amending a pleading *(see Holchendler v We Transp.,*292 AD2d 568, 569 [2002]; *Northbay Constr. Co. v Bauco Constr. Corp.,*275 AD2d 310, 312 [2000]). The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiffs motion to the extent of granting leave to add a cause of action against the defendants Lawrence T. Gresser and Joseph Simeone for money had and received. There was no showing of significant prejudice or surprise *(see Holchendler v We Transp., supra; Northbay Constr. Co. v Bauco Constr. Corp., supra*at 311-312). Florio, J.P., Crane, Krausman, Rivera and Fisher, JJ., concur.
STATE v. WILLIAMS.

No. COA06-240.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed December 5, 2006.

Certification Date December 27, 2006.

Appeal from Cabarrus (97CRS9849, 97CRS9850, 97CRS10872).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed in part; remanded in part for resentencing in 97CRS9849.
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 ADOPTED

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of KH Funding Company (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Louise B. Sehman, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) and 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 operation of the Company.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                   |  |  |  |                                                                  
|------------------ |  |  |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------
|                   |  | 
|Dated May 14, 2004 |  |  |  | /s/    Louise B. Sehman                                          
|                   |  |  |  |                                                                  
|                   |  |  |  | Louise B. Sehman Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Treasurer
**EXHIBIT 21.1**

**INTELLISYNC CORPORATION**

**SUBSIDIARIESOF THE REGISTRANT**

| **Subsidiaries**                   | ** ** | ** **      | ** ** | **State or Other Jurisdiction of  Incorporation** |
|------------------------------------|------------|-----------------|------------|---------------------------------------------------|
| Intellisync Bulgaria  Ltd.         |       | Bulgaria        |
| Intellisync K.K.                   |       | Japan           |
| Intellisync Romania SRL            |       | Romania         |
| NetMind  Technologies, Inc.   |       | California, USA |
| PDAapps, Inc.                 |       | Delaware, USA   |
| PDA Software  (P) Ltd.        |       | India           |
| Pumatech International             |       | California, USA |
| Identity Systems Pty.  Ltd.        |       | Australia       |
| Intellisync Australia  Pty. Ltd.   |       | Australia       |
| Intellisync Identity  Systems Ltd. |       | United Kingdom  |
| Identity  Systems, Inc.       |       | Delaware, USA   |
| Starfish  Software, Inc.      |       | California, USA |
| Synchrologic, Inc.            |       | Georgia, USA    |
| Intellisync Deutschland  GmbH      |       | Germany         |
| Intellisync Europe Ltd.            |       | United Kingdom  |
| Intellisync Italia  S.r.l.         |       | Italy           |
| Tourmaline Networks, Inc.     |       | California, USA |

 

All subsidiaries of theregistrant are wholly-owned.

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK>  1020817
<NAME> INTERMEDIA CAPITAL PARTNER IV, L.P.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           6,388
<SECURITIES>                                    60,507
<RECEIVABLES>                                   23,163
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,685)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                61,972
<PP&E>                                         310,455<F1>
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 970,764
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           74,453
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           13,239
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       2,287
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   970,764
<SALES>                                        251,671
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               251,671
<CGS>                                           80,432<F2>
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  262,544
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   853
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              78,185
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (74,757)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (4,026)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (71,613)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>PP&E IS SHOWN NET OF ACCUMULATED DEPRECIATION.
<F2>INCLUDES PROGRAM FEES AND OTHER DIRECT EXPENSES.
</FN>


</TABLE>
IN RE J.W.

No. COA06-1227.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed February 20, 2007.

Certification Date March 12, 2007.

Appeal from Mecklenburg (06JT339, 05JA719).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
exv10w3



 






Exhibit 10.3




FIRST AMENDMENT

TO

EQUITY OFFICE PROPERTIES TRUST

SHARE APPRECIATION RIGHTS AGREEMENT





     This FIRST AMENDMENT TO SHARE APPRECIATION RIGHTS AGREEMENT (the “First Amendment”), is
entered into this 31st day of May, 2005, between Equity Office Properties Trust, a Maryland real
estate investment trust (the “Company”), and Stichting Pensioenfonds voor de Gezondheid,
Geestelijke en Maatschappelijke Belangen, a stichting formed according to the laws of the Kingdom
of The Netherlands (“PGGM”).



WITNESSETH:




     WHEREAS, the Company and Jan H. W. R. van der Vlist (the “Grantee”) entered into a Share
Appreciation Rights Agreement dated September 20, 2004, and having a Deemed Grant Date of June 1,
2004 (the “2004 SARs Agreement”) regarding part of the consideration for Grantee’s service as a
Trustee of the Company, and



     WHEREAS, on September 20, 2004, the Grantee transferred all of his rights under the 2004 SARs
Agreement and the associated SARs to PGGM, and



     WHEREAS, the Company and PGGM now believe it is necessary to amend the 2004 SARs Agreement in
such a manner that it will comply with United States income tax laws relating to the payment and
taxation of deferred compensation;



     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, and the promises and mutual covenants set
forth in this First Amendment, the Company and PGGM hereby agree to amend the 2004 SARs Agreement
as follows:




	 	 	 	1.     Paragraph 4(a)(ii) is amended in its entirety to read as follows:






	 	 	 	“(ii) an additional one-third (1/3) of the entire
Option SARs grant made hereunder (rounded to the nearest whole SAR) on
or after June 30, 2005.”






	 	 	 	2.     Paragraph 4(b)(i) is amended in its entirety to read as follows:






	 	 	 	“(i) one-fourth (1/4) of the Restricted SARs (rounded to the nearest whole
SAR) on or after June 30, 2005.”






	 	 	 	3.     Capitalized terms used and not defined in this First Amendment shall have the same meanings
given to such terms in the 2004 SARs Agreement.




 









 






	 	 	 	4.     Except as expressly set forth above, the terms and conditions of the 2004 SARs Agreement
are hereby reconfirmed and agreed to continue in full force and effect.
	 
	 	 	 	IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the undersigned have executed this First Amendment as of the day
and year first written above.





	 	 	 	 	 
	 	EQUITY OFFICE PROPERTIES TRUST

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/  Stanley M. Stevens
 	 
	 	 	Stanley M. Stevens 	 
	 	Its:	Executive Vice President 	 
	 



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	STICHTING PENSIOENFONDS VOOR DE

GEZONDHEID, GEESTELIJKE EN

MAATSCHAPPELIJKE BELANGEN:

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/  Jan H. W. R. van der Vlist
 	 
	 	 	Jan H. W. R. van der Vlist 	 
	 	Its:	                     Director of Structured Investments
STATE v. Christopher Dale RIDLEY.

No. 272P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 18, 2006.

John T. Hall, Raleigh, for Christopher Dale Ridley.

William David McFadyen, Jr., District Attorney, for State.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 18th day of May 2006 by Attorney General for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference this the 18th day of May 2006."
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-60812

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

SHAWNTAE MAURICE FAIRLEY,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 1:16-CR-98-8

Before DENNIS, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Shawntae Maurice Fairley appeals the 360-month prison sentence 

imposed following his conviction of one count of possession of 

methamphetamine with intent to distribute. He challenges the district court’s 

relevant conduct determination and its conclusion that the drugs underlying 

the offense were imported. He also argues that his sentence is substantively 

unreasonable because it is substantially greater than that of a similarly 

 

* 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 21, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-60812 Document: 00514608863 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/21/2018
No. 17-60812

2

situated codefendant. Relying on the appellate waiver in the plea agreement, 

the Government seeks the dismissal of the appeal or, alternately, summary 

affirmance. Fairley does not challenge the voluntariness of the waiver 

provision. Instead, he argues that a miscarriage of justice will occur if the 

waiver is enforced.

Our review of the record shows that Fairley’s appeal waiver was knowing 

and voluntary and that, under the plain language of the plea agreement, the 

waiver applies to his claims. See United States v. Keele, 755 F.3d 752, 754 (5th 

Cir. 2014). We decline to adopt the miscarriage of justice exception to appellate 

waivers. The Government’s motion to dismiss the appeal is GRANTED, and 

the appeal is DISMISSED. The Government’s alternate motion for summary 

affirmance is DENIED.

 Case: 17-60812 Document: 00514608863 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/21/2018
#### Mohani Jaikaran, Appellant, v Abraham Marin, Also Known as Jack Marin, Also Known as Andrew Marin, Respondent.

[800 NYS2d 848]

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff appeals from (1) a decision of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Amrosio, J.), dated September 24, 2003, made after a nonjury trial, and (2) a judgment of the same court dated November 13, 2003, which, upon the decision, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the appeal from the decision is dismissed, as no appeal lies from a decision *(see Schicchi v Green Constr. Corp.,*100 AD2d 509 [1984]); and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed; and it is further,

*992Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the defendant.

A determination rendered by a court after a nonjury trial should not be disturbed on appeal “unless it is clear that its conclusions could not have been reached under any fair interpretation of the evidence” *(Ardmar Realty Co. v Building Inspector of Vil. of Tuckahoe,*5 AD3d 517, 518 [2004]). The trial court’s determination was supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence.

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Schmidt, J.P., S. Miller, Santucci and Skelos, JJ., concur.
STATE v. Eddie CAPLE.

No. 437P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 19, 2006.

Victoria L. Voight, Special Deputy Attorney General, Daniel P. O'Brien, Assistant Attorney General, L. Johnson Britt, III, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 13th day of July 2006 by Defendant to Dissolve Stay:

> "Motion Dismissed as Moot by order of the Court in conference this the 19th day of December 2006."

Justice BRADY recused.
STATE v. LITTLE.

No. COA06-39.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed October 3, 2006

Certification Date October 23, 2006.

Appeal from Guilford (03CRS103572)

Case reported without published opinion. No error.