alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 10.19**

**FORM FOR NON-EMPLOYEE TRUSTEES HOLDING**

**HOLDING PHANTOM SHARES**

 

[RAIT FINANCIAL TRUST LETTERHEAD] 

December __, 2008 

**[Name of Non-Employee Trustee]**

**[Address]**

Dear_________: 

The purpose of this letter is to notify you of an amendment to your outstanding grant agreements covering your outstanding phantom shares (collectively, the“Agreements”) that were granted to you under the RAIT Investment Trust Phantom Share Plan (the “Phantom Plan”) which was recently approved by the Compensation Committee of the RAIT Financial Trust Board of Trustees (the“Committee”), as well as to amend such Agreements to reflect this change in the terms of your phantom shares. 

Specifically, the Committee hasapproved an amendment to all outstanding grants covering phantom shares under the Phantom Plan to provide that such phantom shares will be redeemed in January 2009 to an equivalent number of shares of beneficial interest, par value $0.01 per share,of RAIT Financial Trust (the “Shares”). Prior to this amendment, phantom shares did not become redeemed until the recipient separated from service from the Board of Trustees of RAIT Financial Trust. As result of this amendment to theoutstanding phantom shares, all outstanding phantom shares under the Phantom Plan will be subject to the requirements of section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”), irrespective of whether such phantomshares were subject to such requirements prior to such amendment. This redemption of the phantom shares in January 2009 is being made in accordance with the transition relief set forth in the Proposed Regulations under Section 409A of the Codeand IRS Notice 2007-86. 

This letter serves as the amendment to all of your Agreements covering your outstanding phantom shares, and, as of the date ofthis letter, all of your outstanding Agreements are hereby amended to provide that the phantom shares subject to such Agreements shall be redeemed in January 2009, as opposed to the original redemption date set forth in your Agreements, to a singlesum payment of an equivalent number of Shares. In addition, your Agreements are also amended to provide that they are intended to comply with the requirements of section 409A of the Code and shall in all respects be administered in accordance withsection 409A of the Code. 

*                                *                                *                                * 

As this letter amends the terms of your Agreements, youshould retain this letter with your Agreements. Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact __________ at ________. Should you have any questions about how section 409A of the Code applies to you and your Agreements youshould contact your personal tax advisor. 

Sincerely,
State of North Carolina v. Ronald Anthony Miller

No. 71P16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 9, 2016

John R. Mills, Attorney at Law, For Miller, Ronald Anthony.

Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, Lora C. Cubbage, Assistant Attorney General, Michael Bonfoey, District Attorney, For State of North Carolina.

**ORDER**

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 7th of March 2016 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:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of June 2016."
# C_2008142EN.01000601.xml

| 7.6.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 April 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Roma) — Nuova Agricast Srl v Ministero delle Attività Produttive

(Case C-390/06) (1)

1

(State aid - Aid scheme authorised for a specific period - Notification of the amended aid scheme for a new period - Transitional measures between the two schemes - Decision of the Commission not to raise objections - Information available to the Commission - Validity of the Commission's decision - Equal treatment - Statement of reasons)

(2008/C 142/07)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale ordinario di Roma

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Nuova Agricast Srl

Applicant:

Defendant: Ministero delle Attività Produttive

Defendant:

Re:

Preliminary ruling — Tribunale ordinario di Roma — Validity of the Commission Decision of 12 July 2000 declaring compatible with the Treaty an aid scheme provided for under Italian legislation in the form of aid for investment in the less-favoured regions of Italy (SG(2000)D/105754)

Operative part of the judgment

Examination of the question submitted has revealed nothing which might affect the validity of the decision of the Commission of 12 July 2000 not to raise objections against an aid scheme for investment in the less-favoured regions of Italy until 31 December 2006 (State aid No N 715/99 — Italy).

---

(1)  OJ C 294, 2.12.2006.

1

---
EXHIBIT 32.2

      In connection with the Annual Report of BPC Holding Corporation and Berry
Plastics Corporation (the "Registrants") on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 27, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), I, James M. Kratochvil, the Executive Vice-
President, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Secretary of the Registrants,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report containing the financial statements fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 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 operations of the Registrants.


/s/ James M. Kratochvil
_________________________
James M. Kratochvil
Executive Vice-President, Chief Financial
Officer, Treasurer and Secretary

Date: March 18, 2004
# C_2008008EN.01001501.xml

| 12.1.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 8/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 8/15

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 22 November 2007 — Investire Partecipazioni v Commission

(Case T-418/05) (1)

1

(Action for annulment - ERDF - Measure that cannot be the subject of an action - Preparatory measure - Inadmissibility)

(2008/C 8/28)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Investire Partecipazioni SpA (Rome, Italy) (represented by: G.M. Roberti and A. Franchi, Lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: L. Flynn and M. Velardo, Agents, assisted by G. Faedo, Lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Application for annulment of decisions allegedly contained in two letters from the Commission's Directorate General for Regional Policy of 11 and 23 August 2005, addressed to the Permanent Representation of the Italian Republic to the European Union, concerning the ineligibility, for assistance from the European Regional Development Fund, of a measure provided for in the Objective 2 Single Programming Document for the period 1997-1999 concerning the Region of Piedmont (Italy).

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | Investire Partecipazioni SpA shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Investire Partecipazioni SpA shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 22, 28.1.2006.

1

---
4 3<> -/J

ELECTRONIC RECORD

COA# 11-12-00134-CR OFFENSE: 22.01

Jack Theotrice Clark, Jr. v.

STYLE: The State of Texas COUNTY: Taylor

COA DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED TRIAL COURT: 350th District Court

DATE:3/12/13 Publish: YES TC CASE #: 9708-D

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

Jack Theotrice Clark, Jr. v.

style: The State of Texas

APPALL AHT\<> Petition

FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS:

DATE: 06/&1/301f

JUDGE: A U>'stAsiAstiH^-

CCA#: PD-0439-15

CCA Disposition:

DATE:

JUDGE:

SIGNED:

PUBLISH:

REHEARING IN CCA IS:

JUDGE:

PC:_

DNP:

MOTION FOR

ELECTRONIC RECORD
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 177 (Wednesday, September 14, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 54355]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-18248]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Bureau of Economic Analysis


Bureau of Economic Analysis Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Bureau of Economic Analysis, Economics and Statistics 
Administration.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Public Law 92-
463 as amended by Public Law 94-409, Public Law 96-523, Public Law 97-
375 and Public Law 105-153), we are giving notice of a meeting of the 
Bureau of Economic Analysis Advisory Committee. The meeting's agenda is 
as follows: 1. Director's report/update; 2. Communication of BEA data 
methodologies and concepts; 3. NAICS, NAPCS and time series continuity; 
4. International data needs; 5. Medical care spending.

DATES: Friday, November 4, 2005, the meeting will begin at 9 a.m. and 
adjourn at approximately 4 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will take place at the Bureau of Economic 
Analysis, 1441 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 20230.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James J. Murphy, Public Affairs 
Specialist, Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce, 
Washington, DC 20230; telephone number: (202) 606-2787.
    Public Participation: This meeting is open to the public. Because 
of security procedures, anyone planning to attend the meeting must 
contact James Murphy of BEA at (202) 606-2787 in advance. The meeting 
is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for 
foreign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be 
directed to James Murphy at (202) 606-2787.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Committee was established September 2, 
1999, to advise the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) on matters 
related to the development and improvement of BEA's regional economic 
accounts and proposed revisions to the International System of National 
Accounts. This will be the Committee's ninth meeting.

    Dated: September 7, 2005.
J. Steven Landefeld,
Director, Bureau of Economic Analysis.
[FR Doc. 05-18248 Filed 9-13-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-06-P
FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MARCH 18, 2009 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 8- 14 89 5 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 7- 80 97 3- CV-WJZ ABD ELQADE R HAWAMDEN, on hi s o wn b eh al f an d o th ers si mil arl y si tu at ed , Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t,
ve rs us A.M.K. PETROLEUM ENT ERPRI SES, INC., a Fl or id a co rp or at io n, KLEOPAS KLE OPA, in di vi du al ly, Defen da nt s- App el le es .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e So uthe rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Ma rch 18 , 20 09 ) Befo re TJ OFLAT, DU BINA an d F AY, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM:Thi s ap pe al ch al le ng es th e ref us al of t he tri al jud ge to gi ve a reque st ed in st ru ct io n fo r th e jury in asu itforov ert im e co m pe ns at io n. Ap pl y in g the de fere nt ia l s tand ardof r ev ie w app li cab le , we fin d n o e rro r. The i ns tru ct io ns gi ve n to th e jury, con si de redas awho le , su ffi ci en tl y in st ru ct edth e juro rs onth e is su es pr es en te d. AFFIRMED.

2
----

(2004/C 65 E/287)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3202/03

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(30 October 2003)

Subject:   Ban on the use of paraquat

At a recent meeting of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health, a Commission proposal was adopted regarding the use of paraquat as a pesticide. This substance is known to be exceedingly dangerous and can cause irreversible damage to human health. Given its highly toxic nature, coupled with the absence of any antidote, it may prove fatal and it is particularly harmful to animals and birds. In certain Member States the use of paraquat has been prohibited and many non-governmental organisations have called for a ban on its use both in the EU Member States and in the developing countries.

Why has the Commission recommended the continued use of such a highly toxic substance? Is it aware that by authorising the widespread use of paraquat, it will encourage its use in countries where it is already banned and in developing countries? Will it reconsider the matter, given the availability of safer alternatives?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(18 November 2003)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written P-3093/03 by Mr Ettl (1).

----

(1)  See page 266.

----
# CE2004070EN.01023501.xml

| 20.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 70/235 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 70/235

---

(2004/C 70 E/252)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3199/03

by Marianne Thyssen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(30 October 2003)

Subject:   Belgian Government takeover of the pension fund of telecommunications operator Belgacom

Subject:

As the Commission knows, the Belgian Government has decided to take over the Belgacom pension fund. In return for accepting the fund's liabilities, the Government will receive EUR 5 billion in December 2003. The Government has announced that it will regard that amount as revenue for balance-of-payments calculations. Furthermore, the Belgian Government is planning to spread the EUR 5 billion payable and to be paid in 2003 over two financial years, i.e. the year in which the revenue is actually received plus the following year.

On the basis that ESA standards are an instrument for compliance with the Stability Pact and that, accordingly, strict application thereof is a prerequisite for Member State accounts to be transparent and accurate, and given that lax interpretation or application of ESA standards is tantamount to surreptitious weakening of the Stability Pact and stability programme commitments, can the Commission say:

| 1. | whether or not it will allow the EUR 5 billion to be booked in the budget as net revenue minus the associated liabilities taken over, and why? |
| --- | --- |

1.

whether or not it will allow the EUR 5 billion to be booked in the budget as net revenue minus the associated liabilities taken over, and why?

| 2. | how it views the Belgian Government's plan to window-dress not one, but two budgets by spreading the ‘revenue’ over two financial years? |
| --- | --- |

2.

how it views the Belgian Government's plan to window-dress not one, but two budgets by spreading the ‘revenue’ over two financial years?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(8 December 2003)

(8 December 2003)

Eurostat has been informed that the Belgian Government will take over the pension obligations incurred by Belgacom for its own staff.

Eurostat is considering the issue closely and will give its opinion as regards the treatment of the operation in national accounts, and notably the impact on government deficit and debt.

Eurostat has also been informed that the Belgian Government intends to record the effect of the transfer both for 2003 and 2004 fiscal years. This also requires a specific examination as regards the compliance with the European System of national and regional Accounts (ESA95) provisions relating to the ‘accrual’ principle on the time of recording of transactions.

---
## IN THE COURT O F CRIMINA L A PPEA LS OF TEXA S NO. WR-72,045-03
IN RE DONALD WILLIAM P UG H, Relator
ON AP P LICATION FOR AWRIT OF M ANDAM US

CAUSE NO. 1210055-A F ROM HARRIS COUNTY
Per curiam . O R D E R Relator has filed a motion for leave to file an a pplication for a

writ of mandamus pursuant to the orig inal jurisdiction of this Court. In it, he contends that he filed, on Dec ember 21, 2012, an application for a writ of habea s corpus in the 248th District Court of Har ris County , that more than 35 day s have elapse d, and that the application has not y et been forwa rded to this Court. The district court e ntere d an orde r desig nating issues on April 18, 2013. Respondent, the J udg e of the 248th District Court of Har ris County , shall file a response with this Court by having the District Clerk submit the rec ord on such habea s corpus application. In the alternative, Respondent may resolve the issues set out in the order desig nating issues and then have the District Clerk submit the rec ord on such application. In either case , Respondent’s answe r shall-2-

be submitt ed wi t h i n 3 0 d ay s of the date of this order
. This application for leave to file a writ of mandamus will be held in abe y ance until R espondent ha s submitt ed his response
.
Filed: September

17, 2014 Do not publish
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the PanAmSat
Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 1996 and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                       3,336,719
<SECURITIES>                               372,405,626
<RECEIVABLES>                                9,423,406
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (100,000)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            26,478,014
<PP&E>                                     859,319,906
<DEPRECIATION>                           (122,912,134)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           1,569,289,379
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       25,111,932
<BONDS>                                    616,583,843
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      318,193,850
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,000,016
<OTHER-SE>                                 488,241,258
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             1,569,289,379
<SALES>                                    177,633,945
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           177,633,945
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              100,678,952
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,973,190
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             73,981,803
<INCOME-TAX>                                31,085,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         42,896,803
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                42,896,803
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-4164

_____________________________

JARRELL A. MORRIS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Bruce Anderson, Judge.

December 5, 2018

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of Appellant’s response to the Court’s 

order of July 30, 2018, the Court has determined that the appeal 

is untimely. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Appellant’s 

request for an extension of time to file the initial brief is denied 

as moot. Any request for belated appeal must be filed pursuant to 

Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(c).

LEWIS, WETHERELL, and MAKAR, JJ., concur.
2

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Jarrell A. Morris, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
1... See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4.

COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 2-06-389-CR

THOMAS MARTIN APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

------------

FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 3 OF TARRANT COUNTY

------------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

------------

Thomas Martin appeals his conviction of sexual assault of a child.

Martin’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw as

counsel and a brief in support of that motion. In his motion, counsel avers that

he has conducted a professional evaluation of the record and, after a thorough

review of the applicable law, has reached the conclusion that there are no
2

arguable grounds to be advanced to support an appeal of this cause and that

the appeal is frivolous. Counsel’s brief and motion meet the requirements of

Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why

there are no reversible grounds on appeal and referencing any grounds that

might arguably support the appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738,

741, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967); Mays v. State, 904 S.W.2d 920, 922–23

(Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1995, no pet.). Martin was given the opportunity to

file a pro se brief on his own behalf, but he chose not to do so.

In our duties as a reviewing court, we must conduct an independent

evaluation of the record to determine whether counsel is correct in determining

that the appeal is frivolous. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex.

Crim. App. 1991); Mays, 904 S.W.2d at 923. Only then may we grant

counsel’s motion to withdraw. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82–83, 109

S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988).

We have carefully reviewed the appellate record and counsel’s brief. We

agree that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in

the record that might arguably support the appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178

S.W.3d 824, 827 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Therefore, we grant the motion to

withdraw filed by Martin’s appellate counsel and affirm the trial court’s

judgment.
3

PER CURIAM

PANEL: MCCOY, DAUPHINOT, and HOLMAN, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: August 21, 2008
CRIEGO-EL v. STATE.

No. 50P12-3.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Sept. 24, 2015.

Ovarias Verdad Criego-El, Blanch, for Criego, Ovarias Verdad.

Kathleen N. Bolton, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Ben R. David, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 9th of July 2015 by Plaintiff for Judicial Notice:

> "Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 24th of September 2015."