alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

July 15, 2010 

0708 

Order 

 

July 15, 2010 

140356 & (54) 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 140356 

 COA: 284830 

Saginaw CC: 03-023823-FH 

TIMOTHY DEMETRIS HOLDEN, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 By order of April 28, 2010, this Court denied the defendant’s motion to exceed the 

50-page limit for his application for leave to appeal and gave the defendant 14 days to 

submit an application that conformed to the court rules. On order of the Court, a 

conforming application having been filed, the application for leave to appeal the 

November 19, 2009 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, 

because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this 

Court. 

 KELLY, C.J., would grant leave to appeal.
Court of Appeals

JEFF L. ROSE, CHIEF JUSTICE

DAVID PURYEAR. JUSTICE

BOH PEMBERTON, JUSTICE

MELISSA GOODWIN, JUSTICE

SCOTT K. FIELD. JUSTICE

CINDY OLSON BOURLAND, JUSTICE

Mr. Robert A. Caine

Law Offices ofRobert A. Caine

510 S. Congress Avenue, Suite 103

Austin, TX 78704

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

Ms. Angie D. Roberts-Huckaby

Assistant Criminal District Attorney

Hays County Government Center

712 South Stagecoach Trail, Suite 2057

San Marcos, TX 78666

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

Third District of Texas

P.O. BOX 12547. AUSTIN. TEXAS 78711-2547

www.txcouits.gov/3rdcoa.aspx

(512) 463-1733

JEFFREY D. KYLE. CLERK

July 24. 2015

iVMs. Brcnda Elaine King

1307 Uhland Road

San Marcos, TX 78666

RE: Court of Appeals Number:

Trial Court Case Number:

Style: Brenda Elaine King

v. The State ofTexas

03-14-00240-CR

CR-12-1083

Dear Counsel:

Oral argument having been denied by this Court, this cause is set for submission on briefs,

on Friday, August 14, 2015. before Justices Puryear, Pemberton, and Field.

Very truly yours,

•SL.

C Kg6

Jeffrey D. Kyle, Clerk
Court ofAppeals

Third District

p.o. box 12547. austin. texas 78711-2547

NO LONGER

IN OUR CUSTODY

RETURN

seSBer

as-M a$4s FWg t

MS. BRENDA ELAINE KING

/TWTJFIUtfJrTRD.

)san M^RGosjfxIzael

.•3J--"" ••>.... **

RECEIVED \

JUL 3 0 2015

PEALS >

\ EffREYD.KYIE X
POWER OF ATTORNEY

         Know all by these presents, that the undersigned hereby constitutes and
appoints  each of Adolph J. Ferro and Gilbert N.  Miller,  signing  singly,  the
undersigned's true and lawful attorney-in-fact to:

         1. Execute for and on behalf of the undersigned,  in the  undersigned's
capacity  as  a  director  of  Agritope,   Inc.,  a  Delaware  Corporation  (the
"Company"),  Forms 10-K, 10-Q or 8-K, and any amendments  thereto, in accordance
with Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
the rules and regulations thereunder.

         2. Do and perform any and all acts for and on behalf of the undersigned
which may be  necessary or desirable to complete and execute any such Form 10-K,
10-Q or 8-K,  and any  amendments  thereto,  and  timely  file  such  forms  and
amendments  with the United States  Securities  and Exchange  Commission and the
Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc. or similar authority.

         3. Take any other action of any type  whatsoever in connection with the
foregoing which, in the opinion of such attorney-in-fact,  may be of benefit to,
in the best  interest  of, or legally  required  by, the  undersigned,  it being
understood that the documents executed by such attorney-in-fact on behalf of the
undersigned  pursuant to this Power of Attorney  shall be in such form and shall
contain such terms and conditions as such  attorney-in-fact  may approve in such
attorney-in-fact's discretion.

         This Power of Attorney  shall remain in full force and effect until the
undersigned  is no  longer  required  to sign  Forms  10-K,  10-Q and  8-K,  and
amendments  thereto,  on behalf of the Company,  unless  earlier  revoked by the
undersigned in a signed writing delivered to the foregoing attorneys-in-fact.

         IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  the undersigned has caused this Power of Attorney
to be executed as of this 22nd day of December, 1998.



                                             /S/ Pierre LeFebvre
                                             -----------------------------------
STATE of North Carolina v. Istivan Clevondon DOUGLAS.

No. 401P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 12, 2008.

Istivan C. Douglas, Pro Se.

Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, Roxann Vaneekhoven, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 5th day of September 2008 in this matter for a writ of mandamus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Cabarrus County:

"Denied by order of the Court in Conference this the 12th day of September 2008."
Exhibit 10.11
                                                              -------------

              SEVERANCE PAY PLAN
                      OF
            MEDFORD CO-OPERATIVE BANK

    Effective as of November 8, 2000


                                  AMENDMENT
                                  ---------

      Effective as of June 11, 2003, Section 3.1 of the Plan shall be
amended to read in its entirety as follows:

            Section 3.1    Severance Benefit for Employees.
                           -------------------------------

            (a)   An Employee with at least one (1) year of Service whose
      employment with all Participating Employers is terminated under
      circumstances constituting an Involuntary Severance, other than for
      Cause, within twelve (12) months following or within three (3) months
      prior to a Change of Control shall be entitled, as severance pay, to
      a lump sum payment in an amount equal to two (2) weeks' Salary
      multiplied by the number of the Employee's whole years of Service. No
      Employee may receive more than twenty-six (26) weeks' Salary as a
      severance benefit under this Plan. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no
      Employee who is an Exempt Employee entitled to receive benefits under
      this Plan shall receive a severance benefit equal to less than twelve
      (12) weeks' Salary. The lump sum severance payment called for under
      this section 3.1 shall be made as soon as practicable after, but in
      no case later than five (5) business days following, the Employee's
      Involuntary Severance.

            (b)   For purposes of section 3.1(a) an "Exempt Employee" shall
      mean, in the case of an Employee, an Employee who is not subject to
      the wage and hour standards imposed under the federal Fair Labor
      Standards Act.


<PAGE>  1


      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment has been executed by the undersigned
officer of Medford Co-operative Bank pursuant to authority given by
resolution of the Board of Directors.

                                       MEDFORD CO-OPERATIVE BANK


                                       By /s/ Ralph W. Dunham
                                          ---------------------------------
                                          Name: Ralph W. Dunham
                                          Title: President and CEO

                                       By /s/ John A. Hackett
                                          ---------------------------------
                                          Name: John A. Hackett
                                          Title:


<PAGE>  2
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 531 

To repeal section 10(f) of Public Law 93–531, commonly known as the 

‘‘Bennett Freeze’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 8, 2007 

Mr. MCCAIN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Indian Affairs 

A BILL 

To repeal section 10(f) of Public Law 93–531, commonly 

known as the ‘‘Bennett Freeze’’. 

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 THE BENNETT FREEZE. 

4 Section 10(f) of Public Law 93–531 (25 U.S.C. 

5 640d–9(f)) is repealed. 

Æ 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
DAVIDSON COUNTY BROADCASTING, INC., and Richard and Dorcas Parker, Petitioners v. ROWAN COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, Respondent Mt. Ulla Historical Preservation Society, and Interested Citizens, Prospective-Alternative Cross Petitioner.

No. 517P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 26, 2008.

James T. Williams, Jr., Derek J. Allen, John S. Buford, Greensboro, for Broadcasting, et al.

Anthony Fox, Charlotte, for Board of Commissioners.

Benjamin R. Sullivan, Charlotte, Benn A. Brewington, III, Raleigh, for Rowan Bd.

Richard R. Reamer, Salisbury, for Preservation Society.

Prior report: 186 N.C.App. 81, 649 S.E.2d 904.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 23rd day of October 2007 by Petitioners (Broadcasting, et al.) 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:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 26th day of August 2008."
#### In the Matter of Spectacular Limo Link, Inc., Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

[800 NYS2d 794]

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Ap*1173peal Board, filed November 29, 2004, which ruled that Spectacular Limo Link, Inc. was liable for unemployment insurance contributions on remuneration paid to certain drivers.

Spectacular Limo Link, Inc. operates a limousine transportation service and hires drivers by advertising and by word-of-mouth referrals. The drivers are assigned jobs, told where and when to go and are required to display Spectacular’s sign when picking up passengers. Spectacular sets the rates that passengers are charged and handles all the billing, collecting fares and customer complaints. Upon completion of their assignments, the drivers submit to Spectacular their receipts and vouchers, along with their daily logbook, and are paid 65% of the fares they collect each week. The drivers are not allowed to use substitute drivers without Spectacular’s prior approval.

Under the circumstances presented here, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s decision finding the limousine drivers to be employees and assessing Spectacular additional contributions is supported by substantial evidence and must be sustained *(see Matter of De Paiva [Olympic Limousine—Commissioner of Labor],*270 AD2d 534, 534-535 [2000]; *Matter of Jarzabek [NYC Two Way—Sweeney],*235 AD2d 878 [1997]; *Matter of Freidenberg [Limousine Resources Mgt. Corp.—Sweeney],*235 AD2d 866 [1997]). The fact that the record also contains evidence which would support a contrary conclusion does not mandate reversal under these circumstances *(see Matter of De Paiva [Olympic Limousine—Commissioner of Labor], supra*at 535).

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Peters, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
SHUFORD v. REGAL MFG. CO.

No. COA07-772.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed February 5, 2008.

Certification Date February 25, 2008.

Appeal from NC Industrial Commission (I.C. 441413, I.C. 488251).

Cases reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 3


                              ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT
                                       TO
                            ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION
                                       OF
                           MASTER COMMUNICATION CORP.


PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 607.1006, FLORIDA STATUTES, THIS FLORIDA
PROFIT CORPORATION ADOPTS THE FOLLOWING ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT TO ITS ARTICLES OF
INCORPORATION.

FIRST:            Amendment(s) adopted: (indicate article number(s) being
                  amended, added or deleted)

                      ARTICLE I       NAME   -     Is to be changed as follows:


                      ARTICLE I:      THE NAME OF THE CORPORATION SHALL BE:

                                      i-Incubator.com, Inc.


SECOND:           If an amendment provides for an exchange, reclassification or
                  cancellation of issued shares, provisions for implementing the
                  amendment if not contained in the amendment itself, are as
                  follows:

                  Not Applicable

THIRD:            The date of each amendment's adoption:  November 22, 1999
                                                          -----------------

FOURTH:           Adoption of Amendment(s) (CHECK ONE)

[X]               The amendment(s) was/were approved by the shareholders. The
                  number of votes cast for the amendment(s) was/were sufficient
                  for approval.

[ ]               The amendment(s) was/were approved by the shareholders
                  through voting groups. The following statement must be
                  separately provided for each voting group entitled to vote
                  separately on the amendment(s):

[ ]               "The number of votes cast for the amendment(s) was/were
                  sufficient for approval by _________________________."
                                                    voting group

[ ]               The amendment(s) was/were adopted by the board of directors
                  without shareholder action and shareholder action was not
                  required.

<PAGE>

[ ]               The amendment(s) was/were adopted by the incorporators
                  without shareholder action and shareholder action was not
                  required.


                  Signed this 22nd day of November, 1999

Signature: /s/ Jamee Freeman
           -----------------
           (By the Chairman or Vice Chairman of the Board of Directors,
           President or other officer if adopted bythe shareholders)

                                       OR

                   (By a director if adopted by the directors)

                                       OR

              (By an incorporator if adopted by the incorporators)

                                  JAMEE FREEMAN
                              ---------------------
                              Typed or printed name

                               Director, President
                               -------------------
                                      Title
BARNARD v. N.C. DEPT. OF TRANSP.

No. COA07-1015.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed November 18, 2008.

Certification Date December 8, 2008.

Appeal from NC Industrial Commission (TA-18275).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
# C_2022482EN.01002901.xml

| 19.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 482/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 482/29

---

Action brought on 31 October 2022 — Nagolimad — Serviços Internacionais v Commission

(Case T-668/22)

(2022/C 482/38)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Nagolimad — Serviços Internacionais, SA (Funchal, Portugal) (represented by: M. Afonso and J. Ferreira Faria, advogadas)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul Commission Decision C(2020) 8550 final of 4 December 2020 on aid scheme SA.21259 (2018/C) (ex 2018/NN) implemented by Portugal for Zona Franca da Madeira (ZFM) — Regime III; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Decision C(2020) 8550 final of 4 December 2020 on aid scheme SA.21259 (2018/C) (ex 2018/NN) implemented by Portugal for Zona Franca da Madeira (ZFM) — Regime III;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant relies on six pleas in law which, in essence, are identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-553/22, Thorn Investments v Commission.

---
STATE v. COOK.

No. COA07-1096.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed May 20, 2008.

Certification Date June 9, 2008.

Appeal from Cumberland (03CRS70932, 03CRS70933, 03CRS70934, 03CRS70935, 03CRS70936, 03CRS70938, 03CRS70914).

Cases reported without published opinion. No error.
----

(2004/C 33 E/075)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0771/03

by Marco Cappato (NI) to the Commission

(6 March 2003)

Subject:   Right to religious freedom in Cambodia

Last Friday the Ministry for Religious Affairs of Cambodia adopted a directive forbidding all public proselytising activities. The provision is clearly aimed at preventing possible religious tensions and protecting the privacy of the Cambodian people. The government's initiative appears to have been prompted by the practice followed by some religious communities, such as the evangelical churches, of campaigning from door to door. The Under-Secretary of State for Religious Affairs, Dok Narin, has said that: ‘some Christian groups are not good. They are forcing people to convert’.

Is the Commission aware of this provision? What will it do to avert the risk of this directive being used to discriminate against religious groups disliked by the government? What pressures will it bring to bear to ensure that Cambodians fully enjoy the right to religious freedom, which, as established by Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, includes the freedom to change religion or belief and the freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest one's religion or belief in teaching practice, worship and observance?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(26 March 2003)

The Commission is well aware of the Directive of the Ministry of Cults and Religious Affairs issued on 14 January 2003, which aims at preventing inter-religious conflicts by enforcing instructions issued on 21 August 1999.

While it is true that according to the Directive, some Christian proselytising activities are forbidden, such as door-to-door visits ‘since these actions disturb the daily life of the people and create situations of insecurity that affect social peace’, the Directive also states that it is compulsory to respect religions other than yours own and it is forbidden to criticise or smear them. This is also valid for Buddhism, the State religion in Cambodia. Any activity leading to inciting religious hatred or conflict is also prohibited.

Religious freedom in Cambodia is guaranteed by article 31 (Chapter III) of the Constitution. In the absence of an in dept-analysis at this stage, the Directive as well as measures adopted until now by the Ministry of Cults and Religious Affairs, which are put in place to avoid the risks of religious conflicts, do not appear to violate the Universal Declaration on Human Rights nor the provisions of the Cambodian Constitution.

The Commission does not find any reason, at present, to believe that the government will use this Directive to discriminate against any particular religious groups.

----
Named Executive Officer Compensation as of January 1, 2010



  
 Exhibit 10.29

 NAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICER COMPENSATION 
 The following table sets forth the current annual base salaries of the Named Executive Officers1 (the “NEOs”) of Franklin Resources, Inc. (the “Company”) as of January 1, 2010. 

 

					
	 Name and Principal Position
	  	Base Salary	 
	 Gregory E. Johnson

President and Chief Executive Officer
	  	$	780,132	  
		
	 Kenneth A. Lewis

Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
	  	$	525,000	  
		
	 Vijay C. Advani

Executive Vice President, Global Distribution
	  	$	525,000	  
		
	 Jennifer M. Johnson

Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer
	  	$	525,000	  
		
	 William Y. Yun

Executive Vice President, Alternative Strategies
	  	$	525,000	  

 The Named Executive Officers are also
eligible to: 
 Incentive Compensation 
  

	 	(a)	receive an annual cash incentive award pursuant to the 2004 Key Executive Incentive Compensation Plan, as amended and restated, and the Company’s Amended and
Restated Annual Incentive Compensation Plan, as amended and restated; 

  

	 	(b)	participate in the Company’s equity incentive program, which currently involves restricted stock awards (including those awards based on performance) and
restricted stock unit awards (including those units based on performance) and may also involve awards of stock options, in each case pursuant to the Company’s 2002 Universal Stock Incentive Plan, as amended and restated; and


  

	 	(c)	receive additional cash or equity payments or awards for special recognition of significant contributions or for retention purposes. 


Benefit Plans and Other Arrangements 
  

	 	(a)	participate in the Company’s broad-based benefit programs generally available to its salaried employees, including health, disability and life insurance programs,
the Franklin Templeton 401(k) Retirement Plan and the 1998 Employee Stock Investment Plan, as amended and restated (the “ESIP”); provided that Mr. G. Johnson and Ms. J. Johnson are not eligible to participate in the ESIP; and


  

	 	(b)	receive certain perquisites offered by the Company, including club memberships, and, in certain limited cases, use of the Company’s aircraft for personal use.


  

	1	The Named Executive Officers are the Company’s principal executive officer, principal financial officer, and each of the three most highly compensated executive
officers of the Company for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2009, as set forth in the Company’s proxy statement for its 2010 annual meeting of stockholders and who continue to serve the Company in such capacity as of the date this
Exhibit is filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.8
 
                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT
 
To the Directors of Fina Exploration Norway SCA:
 
We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Registration Statement of
PetroFina S.A. on Form S-8 (File No. 333-61145) of our report dated January 27,
1997, appearing in the Annual Report on Form 20-F of PetroFina S.A. for the year
ended December 31, 1998, relating to the balance sheet of The Branch of Fina
Exploration Norway SCA as of December 31, 1996 and the related statements of
profit and loss and cash flows for the year then ended.
 
KPMG as represented by
 
/s/ Jorgen Lorentzen-Styr
 
Jorgen Lorentzen-Styr
Sandvika, Norway
April 27, 1999