alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
STATE v. Darrell Wayne MANESS.

No. 402A06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 31, 2008.

Katherine Jane Allen, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Maness.

William B. Crumpler, Assistant Attorney General, Barry S. McNeill, Special Deputy Attorney General, Rex Gore, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 25th day of March 2008 by Defendant for extension of time to file brief:

"Motion Allowed. Defendant (Maness) shall have up to and including the 7th day of April 2008 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court. By order of the Court in *900conference this the 31st day of March 2008."
# C_2023189EN.01003602.xml

| 30.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 189/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 189/36

---

Action brought on 11 April 2023 — Insomnia v EUIPO — Black Insomnia Coffee (BLACK INSOMNIA)

(Case T-185/23)

(2023/C 189/48)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Insomnia Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: L. Cassidy, A. Reynolds and P. Smyth, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Black Insomnia Coffee Co. Ltd (Winchester, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark BLACK INSOMNIA — Application for registration No 18 128 257

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 February 2023 in Cases R 679/2022-1 and R 692/2022-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision in so far as it dismissed the appeal in Case R 679/2022-1 and refuse the mark in respect of all the contested goods in Class 25; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision in so far as it dismissed the appeal in Case R 679/2022-1 and refuse the mark in respect of all the contested goods in Class 25;

| — | make an order to pay the applicant’s costs (under Articles 133 and 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court). |
| --- | --- |

—

make an order to pay the applicant’s costs (under Articles 133 and 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court).

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
## OFTEXAS 1, AUSTIN. **TEXAS** 78731

August 22, 1974 The Honorable Robert S. Calvert Opinion No. H- 378 Comptroller ofPublic Accounts State Finance Bldg. Austin, Texas Re: Whether ‘unlicensed surety companies may furnish bonds in satisfaction ofthe security required under Art. 20.021 (N) (l), Taxation-General, V.T. C.S. Dear Mr. Calvert:

As a result ofthe number ofdelinquent sales tax accounts and the difficulty in collecting them, the 63rd Legislature added Sec. NtoArticle 20.021, Taxation-General, V.T. C.S., reading, in part: .(N) Bonds or Securities (1) Every person who holds a sales tax permit under this Chapter as of January 1, 1974, and is delinquent in the payment ofany taxes, penalties and/or .interest on January 1, 1974, and every applicant for a sales tax.permit on or after January 1, 1974, shall furnish to the Comptroller a cash bond, a bond from a’surety company chartered or authorized to do business in the State of Texas, certificates~ ofdeposits, certificates ofSavings or U.S. Treasury bonds or, subject to the discretion and approval ofthe Comptroller, an assignment ofnegotiable stocks or bonds, or such other security as the Comptroller may deem sufficient to secure the payment oftaxes under this Chapter
. . . . (emphasis added)

. Apparently many small businesses in Texas have been unable to purchase a bond or tofurnish cash or other specified security as required

,

p. 1774The Honorable Robert S. Calvert page 2 (H-37%)

by the statute. As a result, some ofthese businesses have sought the assistance of surplus lines agents who offer toprocure the necessary bonds from out-of-state insurance companies not licensed to dobusiness in Texas.

You ask,whether and under what circumstances Article 20.021 (N) (1)permits the Comptroller to accept bonds written by unlicensed surety companies, and you specifically bring to our attention Article 1.14-2 of the Texas Insurance Code which deals with surplus lines insurance --insurance which cannot be obtained from duly licensed, regulated insurers conducting business in this state.

By the very terms ofArticle 1.14-2 surplus lines insurance is insurance with anunauthorized insurer. Authorized carriers are thoee licensed by the State Board ofInsurance to dobusiness in Texas. Article 1.14, Sec. 1, Insurance Code, V.T. C.S.

Therefore, it is our opinion, that the Comptroller ofPublic Accounts is not obligated toaccept bonds written by unlicensed surety companies, buthe may do so ifhe first determines that they provide sufficient security to secure the payment oftaxes. SUMMARY An unlicensed surety company is not one authorized to dobusiness in the State ofTexas under Article 20.021 (N).(l), Taxation-General, V.T. C.S., so.88 to require the Comptroller toaccept its bond in satisfaction ofthat statute, although he may accept it ifhe determines hit provides adequate security. Very truly yours,

L. HILL .Attorney General ofTexas

p. 1775The Honorable Robert S. Calvert page 3 (H-378)

APPROVED:

AVID M. KENDALL, Chairman Opinion Committee

ps 1776
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3460 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3460

To establish a pilot program to demonstrate best practices, innovation, 
     and knowledge transfer regarding cyber security within State 
                              governments.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 10, 2008

  Mr. Coleman introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To establish a pilot program to demonstrate best practices, innovation, 
     and knowledge transfer regarding cyber security within State 
                              governments.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``State Cyber Security Protection Act 
of 2008''.

SEC. 2. STATE CYBER SECURITY PILOT PROGRAM.

    Subtitle C of title II of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 
U.S.C. 141 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 226. STATE CYBER SECURITY PILOT PROGRAM.

    ``(a) In General.--There is established within the Department a 
State Cyber Security Pilot Program (in this section referred to as the 
`Pilot Program') to demonstrate best practices, innovation, and 
knowledge transfer regarding cyber security within State governments.
    ``(b) Administration.--The Secretary, through the Assistant 
Secretary for Cyber Security and Communications, shall be responsible 
for administering the Pilot Program.
    ``(c) Diversity in Participation.--The Secretary shall ensure the 
maintenance of geographic and population diversity among selected Pilot 
Program participants.
    ``(d) Allocation Limitations.--Amounts allocated to a State under 
this section shall not exceed $3,000,000.
    ``(e) Sunset.--The authorization for the Pilot Program established 
under this section shall expire 2 years following the date of enactment 
of this section.
    ``(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized to be 
appropriated up to $25,000,000 in each of fiscal years 2009 and 2010 to 
carry out the Pilot Program established under this section.''.
                                 <all>
```
David Jonathan MILLER v. PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY.

No. 49P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 23, 2007.

E. Gregory Stott, Raleigh, for Miller.

Glenn C. Raynor, Raleigh, for Insurance Company.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the conditional petition filed on the 13th day of February 2007 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:

"Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 23rd day of August 2007."
STATE v. William E. TUCKER.

No. 218P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 26, 2008.

LaToya B. Powell, Assistant Attorney General, James C. Gaither, Jr., District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 8th day of May 2008 by Defendant for Petition for Discretionary Review Under G.S. 7A-31:

*277"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference this the 26th day of August 2008."
STATE of North Carolina v. Danny L. BRYANT.

No. 542P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 6, 2007.

Amos Tyndall, Chapel Hill, for Danny L. Bryant.

Daniel Addison, Assistant Attorney General, James C. Gaither, Jr., District Attorney, for State.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by the Defendant on the 7th day of November 2007 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30, and the motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question filed by the State of NC, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North. Carolina Court of Appeals: the motion to dismiss the appeal is

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 6th day of December 2007."

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 7th day of November 2007 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 6th day of December 2007."
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           5,800
<SECURITIES>                                         0<F1>
<RECEIVABLES>                                  266,100
<ALLOWANCES>                                     7,500
<INVENTORY>                                    116,600
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               474,100
<PP&E>                                         574,400
<DEPRECIATION>                                 242,400
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,091,500
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          358,700
<BONDS>                                        187,500
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0<F1>
<PREFERRED>                                          0<F1>
<COMMON>                                       192,500
<OTHER-SE>                                     341,200
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,091,500
<SALES>                                        829,800
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               829,800
<CGS>                                          207,700
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  207,700
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               187,300
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0<F1>
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              15,200
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                152,400
<INCOME-TAX>                                    53,800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             96,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0<F1>
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0<F1>
<CHANGES>                                            0<F1>
<NET-INCOME>                                    98,600
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.67<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.66<F2>
<FN>
<F1>Does not apply.
<F2>Per-share data has been adjusted to reflect the two-for-one stock split
effected during the third quarter of 1997.  Prior financial data schedules 
have not been restated for this stock split.  Common stock equivalents are 
not materially dilutive and, accordingly, have not been considered in the 
computation of per-share earnings which appears on the Consolidated 
Statements of Income.

</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Agreement dated as of November 8, 2010



  
 Exhibit 10.21

 Star Gas Partners, L.P. 
 2187 Atlantic St. 
 Stamford, CT 06902 

Entered into 11/8/10 Effective as of 6/1/10 
 Mr. Daniel P. Donovan 
 Dear Dan: 

This letter confirms your continuing in the position of Chief Executive Officer of Star Gas Partners, L.P. and its subsidiaries (the
“Partnership”), effective as of June 1, 2010. In addition, you will continue to serve as the President of the Partnership. We are pleased to offer you the following compensation package and other terms, the levels and conditions of
which will be in effect for three years following the date of this letter, unless otherwise modified by agreement between you and the Partnership. 
 Base Salary: Your base annual salary commencing June 1, 2010 will be $405,000 per year. You will be paid $16,875 semi-monthly subject to withholding of all applicable taxes and benefit
deductions. 
 Benefit Coverage: You will be eligible to participate in the Partnership’s benefits plans in
accordance with their terms and conditions. 
 Terms: It is understood that your employment is at will and that
either party can terminate the relationship at any time. If the Partnership terminates your employment for reasons other than for cause, or you terminate your employment for good reason, you will be entitled to one years salary as severance. Such
amount shall be paid to you in a lump sum within 30 days after the termination of your employment. In consideration of this offer you agree that while you are an employee of the Partnership and for twelve months thereafter, you will not compete with
the Partnership nor become involved either as an employee, as a consultant or in any other capacity, in the sale of heating oil or propane on a retail basis. You agree that you will not reveal any confidential information concerning the Partnership
and that you will not solicit nor seek to hire, employees of the Partnership during that time. 
 Please indicate your acceptance of this offer
by signing and dating this letter below. 
 Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me. 

Sincerely, 
  

	
	 /s/ Paul Vermylen, Jr.

	Paul Vermylen, Jr.
	Chairman

  

	
	Accepted:
	
	 /s/ Dan Donovan

	Dan Donovan
STATE of North Carolina v. Lenin Javier FLORES-MATAMOROS.

No. 158P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 11, 2008.

Lenin J. FloresMatamoros, Pro Se.

Dahr Joseph Tanoury, Assistant Attorney General, R. Stuart Albright, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 2nd day of April 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 June 2008."
ELLISON v. GAMBILL OIL, et al.

No. 541A07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 16, 2008.

Warren A. Hutton, Forrest A. Ferrell, Hickory, for Kate H. Ellison.

Stephen L. Palmer, Hickory, for Palmer.

Jimmy D. Reeves, M. Alexandra Reeves, West Jefferson, for Gambill.

Frank C. Wilson, III, Boone, for Gosai & B&B.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 9th day of May 2008 by Plaintiff for Extension of Time to File Brief:

"Motion Allowed. Plaintiff (Kate H. Ellison) shall have up to and including the 11th day of June 2008 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court. By order of the Court in conference this the 16th day of May 2008."
FOSTER v. NASH-ROCKY MOUNT COUNTY BD. OF EDUC.

No. COA07-1233.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed July 15, 2008.

Certification Date August 4, 2008.

Appeal from Nash (06CVS152).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
Exhibit



Exhibit 10.3





Amendment to
CF Industries Holdings, Inc.
2009 Equity and Incentive Plan
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors (the “Board”) of CF Industries Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) has determined that it is in the best interest of the Company that the CF Industries Holdings, Inc. 2009 Equity and Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) be amended to revise the tax withholding provisions set forth in Section 8(c) of the Plan; and


WHEREAS, the Board has the authority under Section 8(d)(ii) of the Plan to amend the Plan. 


NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to Section 8(d)(ii) thereof, the Plan is hereby amended as set forth below. 


1.    Section 8(c) of the Plan is amended in its entirety to read as follows: 


(c)    Taxes. The Company or any Subsidiary of the Company is authorized to withhold from any Award granted, any payment relating to an Award under the Plan, including from a distribution of Stock, or any other payment to a Grantee, amounts of withholding and other taxes due in connection with any transaction involving an Award, and to take such other action as the Committee may deem advisable to enable the Company and Grantees to satisfy obligations for the payment of withholding taxes and other tax obligations relating to any Award. This authority shall include authority to withhold or receive Stock or other property and to make cash payments in respect thereof in satisfaction of a Grantee’s tax obligations. The Committee may provide in the Award Agreement that in the event that a Grantee is required to pay any amount to be withheld in connection with the issuance of shares of Stock in settlement or exercise of an Award, the Grantee shall or may satisfy such obligation (in whole or in part) by electing to have withheld a portion of the shares of Stock otherwise to be received upon settlement or exercise of such Award equal to an amount no greater than the maximum statutory tax rate applicable to such Grantee in all relevant jurisdictions and in all cases reduced by the amount of any withholding obligation a Grantee satisfies by cash payment to the Company. All Awards made under the Plan are intended to be exempt from, or to comply with, the requirements of Section 409A of the Code and any regulations or guidance promulgated thereunder and the Plan and such Awards shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with such interpretation.


2.    Effect on Plan.  Except as expressly amended hereby, the Plan shall remain in full force and effect.


3.     Effective Date.  The effective date of this Amendment to the Plan shall be July 21, 2016.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to be executed by a duly authorized representative of the Company, effective as of the Effective Date. 
CF INDUSTRIES HOLDINGS, INC.




By: /s/ Douglas C. Barnard                     
		
	Name:
	Douglas C. Barnard


Title:      Senior Vice President, General Counsel, 
and Secretary
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN THE MATTER OF K.F.C.

A JUVENILE. §

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 2 3

- 00 188

- C V

Appeal from the

6 5th Judicial District Court

O f El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 2 300060 )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, K.F.C. , a juvenile , has filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss his appeal pursuant

to T EX

. R. A PP

. P

. 42.1(a)(1)

. Attached to the motion is a statement signed by K.F.C. stating that

he has been advised by his attorney regarding his right to appeal and he understands the

consequences of dismissing his appeal . We conclude that this is sufficient to show that K.F.C . has

knowingly waived his right to appeal

. See In re E.J.E. , 557 S.W.3d 615, 617 (Tex. App.

— El Paso

2017, opin. on motion) (holding that when a juvenile seeks to dismiss his appeal pursuant to Rule

42.1 , the motion must be supported by a written waiver of the right to appeal in accordance with

Section 51.09 of the Texas Family Code ; requirement can be met by including the appropriate

waiver language in the motion and having the juvenile sign the motion, or by attaching the

ju venile’s written waiver of the right to appeal as an exhibit to the motion to dismiss). Ac cordingly,

we grant K.F.C. ’s motion and dismiss the appeal

.2 We also dismiss the court reporter’s motion for extension to file the record as moot.

Y VONNE T. RODRIGUEZ

, Chief Justice

August 7, 2023

Before Rodriguez , C.J., Palafox, and Soto

, JJ.
BAILEY v. TOWN OF MAGGIE VALLEY.

No. COA08-123.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed October 21, 2008.

Certification Date November 10, 2008.

Appeal from Haywood (06CVD29).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed in part, dismissed in part.