alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
STATE v. Rocky Lee DeWALT.

No. 261P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 11, 2008.

Carlos Mahoney, Durham, for Dewalt.

Tom Horner, District Attorney, for State.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 26th day of June 2008 by State of NC to Dismiss Appeal:

*907"Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference this the 11th day of December 2008."
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.79

            RESOLUTION OF THE COMPENSATION AND EXECUTIVE PERSONNEL

                   COMMITTEES OF THE BOARDS OF DIRECTORS OF

                           EDISON INTERNATIONAL AND

                      SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY


                          Adopted:  February 17, 2000


                              RE:  Plan Deviation


          WHEREAS, Alan J. Fohrer has been elected as chief executive officer of
Edison Mission Energy; and

          WHEREAS, it has been proposed that the benefits that would be payable
under the nonqualified executive benefit plans of the companies in the event Mr.
Fohrer's employment is terminated prior to age 55 as a result of his death or
disability be determined as if he had attained age 55, and the members of the
Committees having conferred thereon;

          NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the nonqualified executive
benefit plans of the companies in which Mr. Fohrer participates shall be
administered and applied with respect to him as provided above.


      [Charles D. Miller]
---------------------------------
Chairman of the Committees



      [M. D. McDonald]
---------------------------------
Counsel
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 58 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the reduction in 

the deductible portion of expenses for business meals and entertainment. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 4, 2007 

Mr. REID (for Mr. INOUYE) introduced the following bill; which was read twice 

and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal 

the reduction in the deductible portion of expenses for 

business meals and entertainment. 

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

3 SECTION 1. REPEAL OF REDUCTION IN BUSINESS MEALS 

4 AND ENTERTAINMENT TAX DEDUCTION. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 274(n)(1) of the Internal 

6 Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to only 50 percent of meal 

7 and entertainment expenses allowed as deduction) is 

8 amended by striking ‘‘50 percent’’ and inserting ‘‘the ap9 plicable percentage’’. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•S 58 IS

1 (b) APPLICABLE PERCENTAGE.—Section 274(n) of 

2 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking 

3 paragraph (3) and inserting the following: 

4 ‘‘(3) APPLICABLE PERCENTAGE.—For purposes 

5 of paragraph (1), the term ‘applicable percentage’ 

6 means the percentage determined under the fol7 lowing table: 

‘‘For taxable years beginning The applicable 

in calendar year— percentage is— 

2007 ......................................................................................... 75

2008 or thereafter .................................................................... 80.’’. 

8 (c) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The heading for 

9 section 274(n) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 

10 amended by striking ‘‘ONLY 50 PERCENT’’ and inserting 

11 ‘‘PORTION’’. 

12 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

13 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

14 December 31, 2006. 

Æ 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
STATE v. LYNCH.

No. COA08-6.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed February 17, 2009.

Certification Date March 9, 2009.

Appeal from Wake (04CRS74473).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
Exhibit 32

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

In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2004 (the "Quarterly Report") of Edison
Mission Energy (the "Company"), and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as enacted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned certifies, to the best of his
knowledge and belief, that:

| | /s/THOMAS R. MCDANIELThomas R. McDaniel Chief Executive
OfficerEdison Mission Energy |  | 
| | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |  | 
| |                                                                                      |  | 
| | /s/KEVIN M. SMITHKevin M. Smith Chief Financial OfficerEdison Mission Energy         |  | 
| |                                                                                      |  | 

This statement accompanies the Quarterly Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Edison Mission Energy and will be retained by Edison Mission Energy and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---



QuickLinks
Exhibit 10.4


 


Letter of Authorization for Automobile Dealer


 


Subject
to applicable regulations of relevant PRC governmental authorities and the
marketing network requirements of the FAW Group Corporation, we hereby
authorize                 
to be a dealer for the automobiles of our company within Beijing, PRC.


 


1.             Authorizer:        FAW-Volkswagen
Sales Co., Ltd.


 


2.             Description of the auto brands
covered under this letter:


 


	
  No.

  	
   

  	
  Authorized Brands

  
	
  1

  	
   

  	
  FAW-Volkswagen
  Brands

  
	
  2

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  3

  	
   

  	
   

  



 


3.             Store same, logos and trademarks
permitted to be used by the dealer under this letter:


 


[store
name]


 


[logos
and trademarks of FAW-Volkswagen]


 


 


	
  Signed by legal representative: 

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Affixed with the company seal: 

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Dated: 

  	
   

  	
   

  
				



 


1
STATE of North Carolina v. Michelle Anita COUSAR.

No. 313P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 11, 2008.

M. Alexander Charns, Durham, for Cousar.

Charles E. Reece, Assistant Attorney General, Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, Clark Everett, District Attorney, for State of NC.

Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ___, 660 S.E.2d 902.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 7th day of July 2008 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

*569"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 11th day of December 2008."
Letter agreement between Deutsche Bank AG and Members of Nevada Voteco LLC



  
 Exhibit 10.1

 Jeffrey Baer 
 Stuart Clarke

 Thomas Fiato 
 Donna Milrod

 September 08, 2010 

Re: Nevada Property 1 LLC 
 Lady and
Gentlemen: 
 This letter will set forth the agreement (the “Agreement”) between Deutsche Bank AG (“Deutsche Bank”) and
Jeffrey Baer, Stuart Clarke, Thomas Fiato and Donna Milrod (collectively, and so long as they remain Members of Nevada VoteCo LLC, the “Independent Managers”). The Independent Managers are officers of Deutsche Bank AG New York Branch,
which is a branch of Deutsche Bank AG. 
 On August 29, 2008, Nevada Property 1 LLC, which is an indirect 100% subsidiary of Deutsche Bank,
acquired ownership of the Cosmopolitan Mortgage Loan from Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, another Deutsche Bank subsidiary. Nevada Property 1 LLC then acquired The Cosmopolitan Resort Casino (the “Property”) at a Trustee foreclosure
sale on September 3, 2008, and is the current owner of the Property. In furtherance of their responsibilities and duties as managers of Deutsche Bank, the Independent Managers have acquired all of the membership interests in Nevada VoteCo LLC
(“VoteCo”) which holds 100% of the voting units of Nevada Property 1 LLC (the “Voting Units”). Deutsche Bank further understands that the Independent Managers have applied to the Nevada Gaming Commission for approval to
participate in the management of the gaming operations of the Property (the “Gaming Operations”) in conjunction with the acquisition of the Voting Units. 
 Deutsche Bank agrees that it will not take any action to influence the Independent Managers in the exercise of their management or voting rights in respect of the Gaming Operations at the Property, and
Deutsche Bank hereby authorizes the Independent Managers to exercise such rights independently of, and without consultation with, Deutsche Bank. Deutsche Bank further agrees that the terms of this Agreement shall be binding on any successor
Independent Manager of Nevada VoteCo LLC. 
 If you are in agreement with the foregoing, please so indicate by signing and returning one copy of
this letter, whereupon this letter will constitute our agreement with respect to the subject matter hereof. This Agreement shall terminate with respect to any Independent Manager if, and at such time as, such Independent Manager is no longer a
member of Nevada VoteCo LLC. 







  

											
		 	 DEUTSCHE BANK AG
	 		  		 	INDEPENDENT MANAGERS	 	
						
	 By:
	 	 /s/ Stefan Krause
	 		  	By:	 	 /s/ Jeffrey Baer
	 	
		 	Member of the Management Board and Chief Financial Officer	 		  		 		 	
						
		 		 		  	By:	 	 /s/ Stuart Clarke
	 	
						
	 By:
	 	 /s/ Fabrizio Campelli
	 		  		 		 	
		 	Head of Group Strategy and Planning	 		  		 		 	
						
		 		 		  	By:	 	 /s/ Tom Fiato
	 	
						
		 		 		  	By:	 	 /s/ Donna Milrod
# CE2004088EN.01029201.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/292 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/292

---

(2004/C 88 E/0299)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2970/02

by Christa Prets (PSE) to the Commission

(22 October 2002)

Subject:   Culture 2000 programme – closing date for submitting projects for ‘St Petersburg 2003’

Subject:

The Culture 2000 programme includes the promotion of special cultural events with a European or international dimension. On 22 August 2002 the Commission's Directorate-General for Education and Culture accordingly called on the appropriate agencies in the Member States to submit cooperation projects on the theme of ‘A European presence in St Petersburg’.

The projects are supposed to involve not only the project coordinator but also at least three co-organisers from at least three other countries taking part in the Culture 2000 programme. The Commission gives 1 October 2002 as the closing date, so there were only 40 days between their first call for project submissions and the closing date, of which 29 were working days. This time frame is surely too short to plan for such an extensive project. Why did the Commission release information on the possibility of submitting projects so late in the day?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(29 November 2002)

(29 November 2002)

Having noticed the recent increased involvement of Member States in cultural projects in St Petersburg and the interest of operators in them, the Commission decided – as part of an experimental action aimed at exploiting the opportunities under Action 3 of the Culture 2000 programme – to put to the test the idea of organising a multilateral cooperation project around an event of this kind (this was also advocated by the Parliament in resolution 2000/2323 on cultural cooperation within the European Union).

After the necessary debates and procedures had been carried out, a special call for projects was launched in August 2002 on the subject of the European presence in St Petersburg during the tercentenary celebrations there in 2003. It was sent to the Member States taking part in the programme via their permanent representatives to the EU. The initial deadline for submission of the projects by the permanent representations was 1 October 2002 but was this was put back to 15 October 2002 so that the Member States would have as much time as possible and the initiative could also be finalised by the end of 2002. The projects which were received are now being examined and the Parliament will of course be kept informed of the results of the initiative.

---
ANDREWS v. HAYGOOD

No. 57A07-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 30, 2008.

Pamela S. Duffy, Molly A. Orndorff, Burlington, for Charlie Brown, Trustee.

Timothy P. Lehan, Raleigh, Robert M. Clay, for Haygood, et al.

Brent Stephens, Durham, for Andrews, et al.

Carlos E. Mahoney, Durham, Burton Craige, Raleigh, for NCATL.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 22nd day of May 2008 by Intervenor (NCDHHS) for Extension of Time to File Brief:

"Motion Allowed. Intervenor (NCDHHS) shall have up to and including the 11th day of July 2008 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court. By order of the Court in conference this the 30th day of May 2008."
STATE of North Carolina v. Frankie Lemoned MOORE.

No. 445P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 11, 2008.

Bruce T. Cunningham, Southern Pines, for Moore.

Richard G. Sowerby, Assistant Attorney General, Seth Edwards, District Attorney, for State of NC.

Prior report: 187 N.C.App. 510, 653 S.E.2d 255.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 22nd day of September 2008 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 11th day of December 2008."
# CE2004070EN.01001501.xml

| 20.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 70/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 70/15

---

(2004/C 70 E/015)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3614/02

by Concepció Ferrer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 December 2002)

Subject:   Imports of raw materials from Morocco and the European leather industry

Subject:

In view of the fact that the European leather industry is having great difficulty in importing hides from Morocco, what action is the Commission taking (or is it intending to take) under the EU-Morocco Association Agreement in order to remedy this state of affairs, which is seriously affecting the industry and undermining the competitiveness of the businesses working within it?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(17 January 2003)

(17 January 2003)

The Commission is fully aware of the impact of export restrictions applied by Morocco on raw material available to the Union industry. The Commission has attracted the attention of the Moroccan authorities to this fact and to the provisions of the Association Agreement between Morocco and the Community. According to this agreement, there should be no quantitative restriction in trade (export and import) between both parties.

Moreover, the Moroccan authorities have mentioned that export restrictions were instaured following a huge increase in their export of raw hides as a consequence of the major epidemics in the cattle worldwide. They also mentioned that this surge in demand led to a critical shortage of raw material for their domestic industry.

Representations have been made to Morocco in this regard but so far without any significant change or elimination of the export restrictive measures. The Commission will look into the market and supply situation of the products in question with European industry to verify to what extent the Moroccan allegations of short supply can be corroborated on the basis of a factual analysis. Obviously, the burden of proof to demonstrate that a shortage of supply exists is incumbent on the Moroccan side. The question will then be raised during the next Association Council due to take place by the end of February 2003, where the Commission will consider the possibility of invoking the provisions of the Association Agreement with Morocco to seek redress of the situation.

---
Second Amendment to Employment Agreement



  
 Exhibit 10.3

 SECOND AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
 THIS SECOND AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”) is made and entered into effective as of November 15, 2010, by and between PLAINSCAPITAL CORPORATION, a Texas
corporation (the “Company”), on behalf of itself and all of its subsidiaries (collectively “Employer”) and JAMES HUFFINES (“Executive”) for purposes of amending that certain Employment Agreement
dated as of January 1, 2009, by and between the Company and Executive, as previously amended by that certain First Amendment to Employment Agreement dated as of March 2, 2009 (the “Agreement”). Terms used in this Amendment
with initial capital letters that are not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to such terms in the Agreement. 
 WHEREAS, pursuant to the authority granted by Section 2 of the Agreement, the Company desires to expand Executive’s duties such that effective November 15, 2010, Executive shall serve as
the President and Chief Operating Officer of the Company and Executive desires to consent to such change in duties; and 

WHEREAS, pursuant to the authority granted by Section 3(a) of the Agreement, effective November 15, 2010, the Company desires
to adjust Executive’s base salary, so that the base compensation Executive receives for his performance of services as President and Chief Operating Officer is comparable and consistent with the base compensation paid to similarly-situated
employees at the financial institutions within the Company’s peer group. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual
promises, conditions and covenants contained herein and in the Agreement, and other good and valuable consideration, the adequacy of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows: 

1. Effective November 15, 2010, Section 2 of the Agreement is amended by replacing all references to “Senior Executive
Vice President and President of PlainsCapital Securities and Assets” and “Central and South Texas Region Chairman” with “President and Chief Operating Officer”. 

2. Effective November 15, 2010, Section 3(a) of the Agreement is amended by replacing “Three Hundred Ten Thousand Dollars
(“$310,000”)” with “Six Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars (“$650,000”)”. 
 3. Except as
specifically amended, altered, modified and changed by this Amendment and the First Amendment to Employment Agreement dated as of March 2, 2009, the Agreement remains in full force and effect as originally written. 

[Signature Page Follows] 







  
 
			
	JAMES HUFFINES
		
	Executive:	 	 /s/ James Huffines

		
	Date:	 	 November 12, 2010

	
	PLAINS CAPITAL CORPORATION
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Alan B. White

		
	Its:	 	 Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

		
	Date:	 	 November 12, 2010




  
 2
# CE2004084EN.01001401.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/14

---

(2004/C 84 E/0014)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2103/03

by Olle Schmidt (ELDR) to the Commission

(18 June 2003)

Subject:   Cross-border investment

Subject:

Does the Commission consider that the introduction of the euro has boosted cross-border investment for the participating states? Could the Commission also give the figures for Sweden?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(2 July 2003)

(2 July 2003)

As stated in the reply by the Commission to the Honorourable Member's written question E-1350/03 (1), available data for Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) indicate that the introduction of the euro has had a favourable effect on cross-border investment for the participating countries. FDI data compiled by Eurostat show a much larger increase of FDI inflows in 1999 and 2000 for the euro area than for other Member States. This can be interpreted as an evidence of a positive impact of the Economic and Monetary Union on cross-border direct investment. Nevertheless, it is important to bear in mind that EMU is only one of the factors that have affected euro-area FDI flows in recent years. In 2001, the slowdown in merger activity and depressed economic conditions entailed a sharp drop in FDI inflows for both the euro-area and other Member States.

1

The figures for foreign direct investmen (2) for Sweden are as follows:

2

| (million euros) |
| --- |
| | 1999 (3) | 2000 | 2001 |
| From EU-15 to Sweden | 45 185 | 12 061 | 8 646 |
| From eurozone to Sweden | 8 839 | 8 496 | 7 090 |
| From non-eurozone to Sweden | 36 346 | 3 565 | 1 556 |
| From extra EU 15 to Sweden | 5 370 | 8 280 | 2 715 |

(million euros)

1999 (3)

3

2000

2001

From EU-15 to Sweden

45 185

12 061

8 646

From eurozone to Sweden

8 839

8 496

7 090

From non-eurozone to Sweden

36 346

3 565

1 556

From extra EU 15 to Sweden

5 370

8 280

2 715

---

(1)  See page 8.

1

(2)  Excludes reinvested earnings.

2

(3)  The merger between Astra and Zeneca and Ford's acquisition of Volvo Personvagnar boosted FDI inflow to Sweden by about EUR 34 062 million (SEK 300 billion) in 1999.

3

---