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

November 21, 1979 

MARK WHITE 

Attorney General 

Honorable Ben Z. Grant, Chairman 

Judiciary Committee 

House of Representatives 

P. 0. Box 2910 

Austin, Texas 78769 

Opinion No. MW- 07 

Re: Salaries of district attorneys. 

Dear Representative Grant: 

You have requested our opinion on the salary of district attorneys 

under section 3 of the ProfeasIonaI Prosecutors Act, article 332b-4, V.T.C.S. 

That section provides: 

Sec. 3. Each district attorney governed by this Act 

shall receive from the state compensation equal to 90 

percent of the compensation that iv provided for a 

district judge in the General Appropriations Act. 

Each commissioners court may supplement the district attorney’s state salary, but shnJl in no event pay 

the district attorney an amount less than the 

compensation it provides its highest paid district 

judge. 

Your specific question is: 

In computing a district attorney% supplementary 

salary, should the commissioners court include the 

compensation provided to a district judge for service 

on the Juvenile Board? 

It is wall established that any compensation received by a judge for his 

service on the @menIle board is for services rendered as a judge. Jones v. 

Alexander, 59 S.W.2d 1080 (Tex. 1933); Attorney General Opinions Ii-461 

ml23 0973). In Holland v. Harris County, 102 S.W.2d 196 (Tex. 19371, 

the court was required to determine the amount of salary due a special 

ludge. The special judge was entitled to the same pay as a district judge. 

The district juc&s received a supplement for their services on the juvenile 

board, but the special judge had no duties with regard to the juvenile board. 

Nevertheless, the Supreme Court held that the juvenile board compensation 

p. 265 
Honorable Ben Z. Grant - Page Two (NW-87) 

was for services as a judge and that it was required to be included in computing the pay 

due the special judge. But cf. Allen v. Davis, 333 S.W.2d 441 (Tex. Civ. App. - Amarillo 

1960, writ ref’d n.r.e.1 (county court-at-law juee not entitled to additional compensation 

paid county judge for juvenile board service). 

Accordingly, since compensation paid by a county to a district judge by virtue of his 

service on the juvenile board Is part of his compensation within the meaning of section 3 

of article 332b-4, V.T.C.S., the amount must be included in determining the minimum 

supplement which may be paid the district attwneys. 

SUMMARY 

In determining the minimum pay due district attorneys covered by 

the Professional Prosecutors Act, which supplements the district 

attorney’s salary, a county must include any supplement it pays 

district judges for service on tha juvenile boar& 

Attorney General of Texas 

JOHN W. FAINTER, JR. 

First Assistant Attorney General 

TED L. HARTLEY 

Executive Assistant Attorney General 

Prepared by C. Robert Heath 

Assistant Attorney General 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMITTEE 

C. Robert Heath, Chairman 

Jim Allison 

David B. Brooks 

Walter Davis 

Bob Gammage 

Susan Garrison 

Rick Gilpin 

William G Reid 

Bruce Y oungblood 

p. 266
TRUHAN v. WALSTON, et al.

No. 364P14-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 10, 2015.

Ann C. Ochsner, Raleigh, for Walston, Susan P.

Bryan T. Simpson, Natalia K. Isenberg, Raleigh, for Truhan, Daniel, et al.

Timothy W. Wilson, Rocky Mount, for North Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company.

M. Greg Crumpler, Rocky Mount, for United Services Automobile Association.

Thomas H. Morris, Wilson, for Walston, Susan P, et al.

Donald E. Clark, Jr., Goldsboro, for Walston, David M.

James D. Secor, III, for Argonaut Great Central Insurance Company.

Jonathan M. Smith, Goldsboro.

Donald J. Dunn, Goldsboro, for Truhan, Daniel Joseph.

Fred Baggett, for N.C. Association of Chiefs of Police.

Amy Y. Bason, General Counsel, for N.C. Association of County Commissioners.

*64Wanda M. Copley, County Attorney, Sharon J. Huffman, Assistant County Attorney, for New Hanover County.

Lowell L. Siler, Durham, for Durham County.

Angela I. Carmon, for City of Winston Salem.

R. Michael Cox, Pasquotank County Attorney, for Pasquotank County.

Debra Bechtel, for Catawba County.

Sam Shames, for Gaston County.

John F. Henning, Jr., Franklin, for Town of Franklin.

Wesley L. Deaton, for Lincoln County.

Huey B. Marshall, Bolivia, for Brunswick County.

Edmond W. Caldwell, Jr., Executive Vice President and General Counsel, For N.C. Sheriffs' Association.

Leon M. Killian, III, Raleigh, for Haywood County.

Chester M. Jones, Franklin, for Macon County.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 20th of October 2014 by Catawba County for leave to file Amicus Curiae Brief:

> "Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 10th of June 2015."
IN RE V.M.C.

No. COA08-934.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed December 16, 2008.

Certification Date January 5, 2009.

Appeal from Gaston (05JT332).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
STATE v. Anna Laura HUCKELBA.

No. 156A15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Nov. 18, 2015.

Edward Eldred, for Huckelba, Anna Laura.

Catherine F. Jordan, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

J. Douglas Henderson, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 16th of November 2015 by State of NC to Amend the Record on Appeal:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 17th of November 2015."
ex10_1.htm


Exhibit 10.1




FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE


 


AMENDED AND RESTATED SITE LEASE AND LANDFILL GAS DELIVERY


 


AGREEMENT AND TO THE SCHEDULE OF DEFINITIONS


 


EACH OF WHICH IS DATED AS OF NOVEMBER 17, 2008


 


 


This FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDED AND RESTATED SITE LEASE AND LANDFILL GAS DELIVERY AGREEMENT AND TO THE SCHEDULE OF DEFINITIONS, EACH OF WHICH IS DATED AS OF NOVEMBER 17, 2008, is made this 20 day of July 2009, and is by, between and among RHODE ISLAND RESOURCE RECOVERY CORPORATION, RIDGEWOOD GAS SERVICES LLC and RHODE ISLAND LFG GENCO, LLC.


 


 


1.           The provisions of Section 3.1(c) of the Agreement shall be deleted and the following provisions shall be inserted in lieu thereof:


 


(c)           Payments to RILG. In the event that (i) RIRRC directly or indirectly constructs or enters into an agreement for the construction of a waste incineration, waste gasification or other waste to energy facility or enters into a relationship, directly or indirectly, with a waste to energy company with respect to the utilization or diversion of waste and (ii) the quantity of waste deposited in the Landfill is less than the total tonnage shown in Exhibit E using the low side estimate and (iii) Landfill Gas generation is insufficient to operate the RILG Facilities at the capacities forecast by RILG prior to such utilization or diversion, then RIRRC shall make monthly payments to RILG in an amount necessary to hold RILG harmless from any reduction in revenues, subject to a reduction for RILG’s avoided cost of operation, as agreed by the Parties; provided that the payments made by RIRRC under this Section 3.1(c) shall not exceed $8,500,000 in any calendar year and shall not extend beyond 2025. In the event the Parties cannot agree as aforesaid, such dispute shall be resolved in accordance with the procedures set forth in Section 17.6 of this Agreement.


 


2.           The definition of Decommissioning Date in the Schedule of Definitions shall be amended to be December 31, 2011.


 


 




  





  











  






 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have set their hand as of the date first set forth above.


 



	
RILG

	 
	
By:

	
Ridgewood Renewable Power LLC, its Manager

	 
	  	  	 
	  	  	 
	
By:

	/s/ Randall D. Holmes	 
	
Name:    

	Randall D. Holmes	 
	
Title:

	Chief Executive Officer	 
	  	  	 
	  	  	 
	  	  	 
	  	  	 
	
RIDGEWOOD GAS SERVICES LLC

	 
	
By:

	
Ridgewood Renewable Power LLC,

	 
	  	
its Manager

	 
	  	  	 
	  	  	 
	  	  	 
	
By:

	/s/ Randall D. Holmes	 
	
Name:

	Randall D. Holmes	 
	
Title:

	Chief Executive Officer	 
	  	  	 
	
RHODE ISLAND RESOURCE RECOVERY CORPORATION

	 
	  	  	 
	  	  	 
	  	  	 
	
By:

	
/s/ Michael OConnell

	 
	
Name:

	
Michael OConnell

	 
	
Title:

	
Executive Director
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      Exhibit 23


                         Consent of Independent Auditors


         We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on

           (i)    Form S-3 No. 333-91797
           (ii)   Form S-8 No. 333-81061
           (iii)  Form S-8 No. 333-71619
           (iv)   Form S-8 No. 333-71621
           (v)    Form S-3 No. 333-75839

of our report dated March 22, 2000, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements of U.S. Vision, Inc., included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for
the year ended January 31, 2000.


                                                        /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
April 27, 2000
# C_2023304EN.01003001.xml

| 28.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/30

---

Action brought on 13 July 2023 — Eckes-Granini Group and International Beer Breweries v EUIPO — Capri Sun (PRISUN)

(Case T-395/23)

(2023/C 304/37)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicants: Eckes-Granini Group GmbH (Nieder-Olm, Germany), International Beer Breweries Ltd (Ashkelon, Israel) (represented by: J. Wachsmuth, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Capri Sun AG (Zug, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicants for the trade mark at issue: Applicants

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘PRISUN’ — Application No 18 228 012

Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 April 2023 in Case R 1057/2022-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | reject the opposition of Capri Sun AG; |
| --- | --- |

—

reject the opposition of Capri Sun AG;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea 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.

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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                          0000930832
<NAME>                                         JETFLEET III
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                          2,713,670
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     188,310
<ALLOWANCES>                                            0
<INVENTORY>                                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                2,901,980
<PP&E>                                         13,502,290
<DEPRECIATION>                                  2,255,860
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 15,081,320
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           1,927,690
<BONDS>                                        11,076,350
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                     1,661,450
<COMMON>                                          815,200
<OTHER-SE>                                       (399,370)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   15,081,320
<SALES>                                                 0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                1,797,150
<CGS>                                                   0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                           0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                1,015,600
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  150,700
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                684,520
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (53,670)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (20,650)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (33,020)
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (33,020)
<EPS-BASIC>                                         (0.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       (0.04)



</TABLE>
# CE2004078EN.01003701.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/37

---

(2004/C 78 E/0037)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1551/03

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(7 May 2003)

Subject:   Labelling of products containing asbestos

Subject:

Council Directive 83/478/EEC (1) of 19 September 1983 lays down special provisions making it compulsory for the labelling of products containing asbestos to warn against the dangers.

1

However, in Portugal some products containing asbestos, such as fibre-cement, do not carry a warning when sold to the public.

Can the Commission say what stage has been reached in the legal transposition of this directive in Portugal?

Can it explain the reason for Portugal's non-compliance?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(17 June 2003)

(17 June 2003)

Council Directive 83/478/EEC of 19 September 1983 amending for the fifth time (asbestos) Directive 76/769/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and preparations was transposed into Portuguese national legislation on 14 January 1987 as ‘Decreto-Lei n. 28/87 de 14/01/1987. Limita a comercialização e a utilização do amianto e dos produtos que o contenham, Diário da República I Série n. 11 de 14/01/1987 Página 183’.

Portugal has therefore complied with the obligation to transpose the Directive into national legislation, in particular those provisions dealing with the labelling of products containing asbestos (Annex II of Directive 83/478/EEC).

It is nevertheless important to note that, apart from Annex II which is still in force today, the Annex I of Directive 83/478/EEC is no longer in force. Indeed Directive 83/478/EEC has been subsequently amended (2) or adapted (3)
   (4), by several Directives that will lead by 1 January 2005 to a total ban of all kind of asbestos fibres (except diaphragms for electrolysis installation). The placing on the market of asbestos based fibre-cement, except for that containing chrysotile, is already prohibited within the Union.

2

3

4

The enforcement of the provisions of Directive 83/478/EEC (labelling) and its subsequent modifications in the national legislation is primarily the responsibility of the Member State concerned. Nevertheless, the Commission has responsibility for ensuring that the provisions of the EC Treaty and the measures taken by the institutions pursuant thereto, including directives, are applied. It will, therefore, contact the Portuguese authorities in order to ensure that they take the necessary measures to enforce the Directive in question.

---

(1)  OJ L 263, 24.9.1983, p. 33.

1

(2)  OJ L 375, 31.12.1985; transposed into Portuguese national legislation as ‘Decreto-Lei n. 138/88 de 22.4.1988’.

2

(3)  OJ L 363, 31.12.1991; transposed into Portuguese national legislation as ‘Decreto-Lei n. 228/94 de 13.9.1994’.

3

(4)  OJ L 142, 5.6.1999; not yet transposed into Portuguese national legislation.

4

---
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-11056

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

PEDRO ANGUIANO-ROSALES

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:07-CR-162-ALL

Before GARZA, CLEMENT, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Pedro Anguiano-Rosales appeals his sentence following his guilty plea for

illegal reentry following removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. For the first

time on appeal, Anguiano-Rosales contends that Kimbrough v. United States,

128 S. Ct. 558 (2007), requires that his sentence be vacated and remanded for

resentencing so that the district court can consider the sentencing disparity

between defendants in the Northern District of Texas and similarly situated

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 19, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-11056

2

defendants in jurisdictions with a fast-track program. Although not conceded

by Anguiano-Rosales, this exact argument was decided contrary to his position

in United States v. Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d 554, 557-64 (5th Cir.), petition for

cert. filed (July 2, 2008) (No. 08-5226) and United States v. Rodriguez, 523 F.3d

519 (5th Cir.), petition for cert. filed (June 30, 2008) (No. 08-5101), and is

foreclosed. To the extent that Anguiano-Rosales’s appeal raises an equal

protection argument, itis also foreclosed by circuit precedent. See United States

v. Lopez-Velasquez, 526 F.3d 804, 808 (5th Cir.), petition for cert. filed (July 25,

2008) (No. 08-5514).

Anguiano-Rosales also raises arguments that are foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense.

UnitedStates v. Pineda-Arrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir. 2007), cert. denied,

128 S. Ct. 872 (2008).

Because all of Anguiano-Rosales’s arguments are foreclosed by circuit

precedent, the Government moves for summary affirmance. In the alternative,

the Government requests an extension of time in which to file a brief on the

merits. The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED, the Government’s motion

for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the Government’s motion for an

extension of time is DENIED.
EXHIBIT 4.1.13

|PREFERRED STOCK
NUMBER |  | PREFERRED STOCK
SHARES
|---------------------- |  | ----------------------

GRAPHIC

INCORPORATED
UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

STRATUS
SERVICES GROUP, INC.

50,000
SHARES SERIES H PREFERRED STOCK, PAR VALUE $0.01

This
Certifies that

is
the owner of

FULLY
PAID AND NON-ASSESSABLE SHARES OF THE CAPITAL STOCK

OF
THE ABOVE NAMED CORPORATION

transferable
on the books of the Corporation by the holder hereof in person or by duly authorized Attorney upon surrender of this certificate properly endorsed.

IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the said Corporation has caused this Certificate to be signed by its duly authorized officers and its Corporate Seal to be hereunto affixed this        day of
                    A.D. 20

[STRATUS
SERVICES GROUP, INC. Corporate Seal]

|/s/ MICHAEL A. MALTZMAN
TREASURER |  | /s/ JOSEPH J.RAYMOND
CHAIRMAN AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
|--------------------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------

---

EXPLANATION OF ABBREVIATIONS

The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of this certificate, shall be construed as if they were written out in full according to
applicable laws or regulations. Abbreviations, in addition to those appearing below, may be used.

|JT TENas joint tenants with right of survivorship and not as tenants in common |  | TEN ENTas tenants by the entireties              
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | --------------------------------------------------
|TEN COMas tenants in common Custodian                                          |  | UNIF GIFT MIN ACTUniform Gifts to Minors Act     
|                                                                                |  | CUSTCustodian for                                
|                                                                                |  | UNIF TRANS MIN ACTUniform Transfers to Minors Act

FOR
VALUE RECEIVED,                        hereby sell, assign and transfer unto

|PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER
IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE |  | 
|--------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|                                                                      |  | 
|                                                                      |  | 

Shares
represented by the within Certificate, and do hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint

Attorney to transfer the said shares on the books to the within named Corporation with full power of substitution in the premises.

Dated:                        20

In
the presence of

X

X

CERTIFICATE

FOR

SHARES

OF

ISSUED
TO

---

DATED

---

---

QuickLinks