alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 14.(a).2


April 20, 2005
Kost Forer and Gabbay
Certified Public Accountant
3 Aminadav Street
Tel-Aviv 67067
Gentlemen:

                RE: ALBAHEALTH LLC (HEREINAFTER - "THE COMPANY")

In connection with our examination of the financial statements of the Company
for the year ended December 31, 2004, we wish to advise you:

     1.   We are aware that the financial statements of the Company, which we
          have examined, will be included in the consolidated financial
          statements of TEFRON LTD and our reports with respect to the financial
          statements of the Company will be relied upon by you.

     2.   We hereby consent to the inclusion of our report relating to our
          examination of the financial statements of the Company covering the
          balance sheets as of December 31, 2004 and 2003 and the related
          statements of income, members' equity and cash flows for the years
          ended December 31, 2004 and 2003, in the annual report of TEFRON LTD
          on Form 20F, which is to be filed with the U.S. Securities and
          Exchange Commission (U.S. SEC) and to the incorporation by reference
          of such report into the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No.
          333-111932).

     3.   We are independent with respect to all entities in the TEFRON LTD
          group, under the requirements of the Public Company Accounting
          Oversight Board (PCAB) and the requirements of the United States
          Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

     4.   We are familiar with accounting principles generally accepted in the
          United States of America and standards of the PCAOB and the financial
          statements of the above Company have been prepared in accordance with
          such principles.

     5.   We are familiar with auditing standards generally accepted in the
          United States of America (U.S. GAAS) promulgated by the American
          Institute of Certified Public Accountants, and our examination with
          respect to the financial statements of the Company was conducted in
          accordance with U.S. GAAS. Kost Forer and Gabbay.

     6.   We are familiar with Regulation S-X and other published accounting
          rules and regulations of the U.S. SEC and the financial statements of
          the Company are prepared in accordance with, and contain the necessary
          disclosures required by, such rules and regulations.

Sincerely,

/s/ McGladrey & Pullen, LLP
1 

### NUMBER 13 - 1 5 - 00315 - CR COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN RE THE STATE OF TEXAS EX REL. STEPHEN B. TYLER

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Rodriguez , Garza, and Longoria Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam 1
Relator, the State of Texas ex rel. Stephen B. Tyler, Criminal District Attorney of Victoria County, Texas, filed a p etition for writ of mandamus and motion for emergency stay in the above cause on July 13, 2015. Relator seeks to compel the trial court to empanel a jury to conduct the sentencing hearing in this matter and to prohibit the trial court from entering a judgment in the case until such h as occurred. The petition was filed while the sentencing hearing was in progress and relator has now informed us that the

1 See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 52.8(d) ( “ When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do so. ” ); T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).2

hearing has already concluded. Specifically, relator has filed a “Notice of Mootness of Mandamus Petition” informing us that the tri al court has completed the hearing to which the mandamus petition pertained. The relator states that it “may file a subsequent writ” dealing with this matter “in the near future,” but this petition and the corresponding motion for an emergency stay have b een rendered moot. To be entitled to mandamus relief, the relator must show: (1) that he has no adequate remedy at law, and (2) that what he seeks to compel is a ministerial act. In re State ex rel. Weeks , 391 S.W.3d 117, 122 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (orig . proceeding). If the relator fails to meet both of these requirements, then the petition for writ of mandamus
should be denied. State ex rel. Young v. Sixth Jud. Dist. C t . of App. at Texarkana , 236 S.W.3d 207, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (orig. proceedin g). A remedy at law, though it technically exists, "may nevertheless be so uncertain, tedious, burdensome, slow, inconvenient, inappropriate, or ineffective as to be deemed inadequate." Greenwell v. Ct. of App . for the Thirteenth Jud. Dist ., 159 S.W.3d 6 45, 648

– 49 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (orig. proceeding). The act sought to be compelled must be a ministerial act that does
not involv e a discretionary or judicial decision. State ex rel. Young , 236 S.W.3d at 210. The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus and the applicable law, is of the opinion that the petition for writ of mandamus should be
dismissed as moot. Accordingly, relator’s petition for writ of mandamus and motion for emergency relief are DISMISSED AS MOOT without regard to the merits and without prejudice. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.8(a).

PER CURIAM3

Do not publish. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b).
D elivered and filed the 13t h d ay of July, 2015

.
Letter Agreement



  
 Exhibit 10.2

 November 10, 2010 
 John C. Chisholm 
 Re: Employment 

Dear Mr. Chisholm: 
 The
purpose of this letter agreement is to confirm the agreement of Flotek Industries, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”) to employ John Chisholm (“Chisholm”) pursuant to the following terms: 

(1) Term. The employment of John Chisholm pursuant to the terms hereof shall be effective as of November 15, 2010 and shall
terminate on the date of the termination of the engagement of Protechnics II, Inc. (and/or its successors and assigns) by the Company pursuant to that certain Amended and Restated Service Agreement dated effective the date hereof between the Company
and Protechnics II, Inc. (the “Service Agreement”). 
 (2) Duties. The duties of Chisholm as an employee of the
Company shall be to provide assistance with respect to the international activities and operations of the Company and its subsidiaries. 
 (3) Compensation. The Company hereby agrees to pay Chisholm a monthly salary of $4,000, subject to such tax and other withholdings as may be required by law. 

(4) Benefits. Unless otherwise agreed, Chisholm shall not be eligible to participate in any employee benefits provided by the
Company to its employees, such as health insurance, club memberships, or automobile expenses allowances or reimbursements, or cellular telephone expense reimbursements. 
 (5) Covenants. Chisholm hereby agrees to be bound by the obligations of the Chisholm Companies (as defined in the Service Agreement) pursuant to Sections 7 and 9 of the Service Agreement, to the
same extent and for the same time periods as the Chisholm Companies are bound by such provisions. 







  
 John C. Chisholm 

November 10, 2010 
 Page 2 of 2 

 
 If the foregoing sets forth the terms of our legally binding
agreement, please execute this letter where indicated below. 
  

			
	Sincerely,
	
	Flotek Industries, Inc.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Jesse E. Neyman

	Print Name:	 	 Jesse E. Neyman

	Title:	 	 EVP Finance & Strategic Planning




 

	
	ACCEPTED AND AGREED:
	
	 /s/ John Chisholm

	John Chisholm
# Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/72 (repealed)Show full title

Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/72 of 3 December 2014 adopting an eighth update of the list of sites of Community            importance for the Atlantic biogeographical region (notified under document C(2014) 9091) (repealed)         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/72                     

# of 3 December 2014

# adopting an eighth update of the list of sites of Community importance for the Atlantic biogeographical region

# *(notified under document C(2014) 9091)* (repealed)                     

F1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                        

Textual Amendments

F1Repealed by Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/2373 of 26 November 2015 adopting a ninth update of the list of sites of Community                                 importance for the Atlantic biogeographical region (notified under document C(2015) 8219).
Chatman v. Prior

NO. S16A0146

Supreme Court of Georgia

February 01, 2016

Judgment affirmed without opinion.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

J une 17 , 2020

s 0610 

# Order

Clerk June 17 , 2020

160720

DEPARTMENT OF TALENT AND ECONOMIC

DEVELOPMENT/UNEMPLOYMENT

INSURANCE AGENCY,

Appellee,

v SC: 160720

COA: 334074

Wayne CC: 18

- 000267

- AE

ANDREW M. AUGUSTINE,

Claimant

- Appellant,

and

TAYLOR FORD, INC.,

Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 19, 2019

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, it appearing to this Court that the

case of Dep’t of Licensing & Regulatory Affairs/Unemployment Ins Agency v Lucente

(Dock et No. 160843

- 4) is pending on appeal before this Court and that the decision in

that case may resolve an issue raised in the present application for leave to appeal, we

ORDER that the application be held in ABEYANCE pending the decision in that case.
WebFilings | EDGAR view


 


Exhibit 10.2(a)
 
 
 
 
Schedule of Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan Agreements of Named Executive Officers dated as of September 30, 2010.
 
		
	 
Name
	 
Maximum SERP Benefit Payable at Retirement

	 
Laurence M. Downes, President and Chief Executive Officer
	 
$250,000

	 
Mariellen Dugan, Senior Vice President and General Counsel
	 
$125,000

	 
Kathleen T. Ellis, Senior Vice President, Corporate Affairs
	 
$125,000

	 
Glenn C. Lockwood, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
	 
$125,000

	 
Stephen D. Westhoven, Senior Vice President, NJR Energy Services Company
	 
$125,000
# CE2004078EN.01010001.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/100 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/100

---

(2004/C 78 E/0100)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2277/03

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(9 July 2003)

Subject:   Construction faults on the Ionian highway

Subject:

In a few months the bridge between Rio and Antimo which is intended to link the southern and northern parts of western Greece will be completed. The Rio-Antirrio bridge is the point where the axis leading from the southern Peloponnese to Patras meets the Athens-Corinth-Patras axis. The Antimo side of the bridge also marks the start of the axis leading to Epirus and the Albanian border which at some point crosses the Egnatia highway. The theoretical development consequences of the new project for the whole of western Greece and far beyond are obvious. However, the axis leading from Antimo to the border is essentially a very inadequate provincial road which is unable to play the part assigned to it.

Will the Commission say how and when this axis (the Ionian highway) is due to become a reality and make the investment in the bridge worthwhile? Is it true that sections of the highway have already been funded by the EU and that the Agrinio by-pass is not functioning properly and the Arta by-pass is not functioning at all owing to very serious construction faults? Does it intend to press for these problems to be corrected and, possibly, for responsibility for this state of affairs to be established?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(22 August 2003)

(22 August 2003)

The Honourable Member is requested to refer to the answers given to Written Questions E-1799/03 by Mr Hatzidakis (1) and P-0386/03 by Mr Averoff (2), as regards the questions of the co-funding with funds of the European Union and the programming for the construction of the Agrinio and Arta by-passes and of the whole Ionian road axe.

1

2

On the basis of the information available to the Commission, the by-passes of Agrinio and Arta are now under construction. They are not completed and operational. No faults or other specific problems have been reported by the national authorities for these projects.

The Commission will be informed on any new development concerning these projects and the whole Ionian axe, and will act on the basis of this and any other relevant information, as provided by the regulations in force for the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund.

---

(1)  OJ C 58 E, 6.3.2004, p. 97.

1

(2)  OJ C 222 E, 18.9.2003, p. 194.

2

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Leon D. Hughes, Appellant.

(Appeal No. 1.)

[801 NYS2d 209]

Appeal from a judgment of the Cattaraugus County Court (Larry M. Himelein, J.), rendered September 13, 2004. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree and unlawfully dealing with a child in the first degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: In appeal No. 1, defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree (Penal Law § 220.31) and unlawfully dealing with a child in the first degree (§ 260.20 [1]) and, in appeal No. 2, he appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree (§ 220.31). The valid waivers by defendant of his right to appeal with respect to both pleas of guilty encompass his challenges to the factual sufficiency of the respective plea allocutions *(see People v Turner,*16 AD3d 1150 [2005]; *People v Chrispen,*306 AD2d 916 [2003], *lv denied*100 NY2d 619 [2003]) and the severity of the respective sentences *(see People v Lococo,*92 NY2d 825, 827 [1998]), as well as his contention that the indictments should have been consolidated *(see People v Verrone,*266 AD2d 16, 18 [1999]). The further contention of defendant that his pleas were not knowingly and voluntarily entered survives the waivers of the right to appeal, but defendant failed to preserve his contention for our review by moving to withdraw the pleas or to vacate the judgments of conviction *(see Chrispen,*306 AD2d 916 [2003]). Finally, the contention of defendant that he was denied his right to effective assistance of counsel is based upon matters outside the record and thus is appropriately raised in a motion pursuant to GPL 440.10 *(see People v Walton,*14 AD3d 419, 420 [2005]). Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Gorski, Smith and Lawton, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM LIN
TELEVISION CORPORATION CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND CONSOLIDATED
BALANCE SHEET, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH LIN
TELEVISION CORPORATION ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-Q SEPTEMBER 30, 1999.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000931058
<NAME> LIN TELEVISION CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          19,746
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   44,621
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,751
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                76,209
<PP&E>                                         154,355
<DEPRECIATION>                                  25,173
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,856,168
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           70,502
<BONDS>                                        299,374
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     704,104
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,856,168
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               153,616
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  136,556
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                35,616
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  (73)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              31,987
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (18,556)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     8,132
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (26,688)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (26,688)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

Zimmerman Truck Lines, Inc. and Chad 

Frymire,

 

 Appellants,

v.

Katrina Pastran,

Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-17-00131-CV

Appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 3

of El Paso County, Texas 

(TC# 2012DCV04303)

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the Appellee’s third motion for extension of time to file the brief 

until March 14, 2018. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE 

THE APPELLEE’S BRIEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that the Hon. John Mobbs, the Appellee’s Attorney, prepare 

the Appellee’s brief and forward the same to this Court on or before March 14, 2018.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 12

th day of February, 2018.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez and Palafox, JJ.
----

(2004/C 33 E/239)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2202/03

by Fodé Sylla (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(27 June 2003)

Subject:   The June 2003 elections in Togo

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(14 July 2003)

----
**EXHIBIT 35****CONSENT OF S. BLAIS**     I hereby consent to the use of my name in connection with the following report and documents,which are being filed as exhibits to and incorporated by reference into the registration statementon Form 40-F of Goldcorp. Inc. (the “Company”) being filed with the United States Securities andExchange Commission: 1. The technical report dated November 17, 2006, entitled “The Red Lake Gold MinesProperty, Red Lake Mining Division, Northern Ontario” (the “Red Lake Report”); and  2. The annual information form of the Company dated March 30, 2007, which includesreference to my name in connection with information relating to the Red Lake Report,and the properties described therein.March 30, 2007/s/ S. Blais
# C_2023083EN.01002901.xml

| 6.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 83/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 83/29

---

Action brought on 23 January 2023 — Japan Tobacco v EUIPO — Dunhill Tobacco of London (FLOW FILTER)

(Case T-20/23)

(2023/C 83/37)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Japan Tobacco, Inc. (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: J. Gracia Albero and E. Cebollero González, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Dunhill Tobacco of London Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark FLOW FILTER — European Union trade mark No 18 002 134

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 October 2022 in Case R 1774/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision to the extent that it upheld the rejection of the application for a declaration of invalidity in relation to the contested goods; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision to the extent that it upheld the rejection of the application for a declaration of invalidity in relation to the contested goods;

| — | order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings before the General Court under Article 190(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court and order the intervener to bear the costs deriving from the proceedings before the Cancellation Division and the Fifth Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings before the General Court under Article 190(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court and order the intervener to bear the costs deriving from the proceedings before the Cancellation Division and the Fifth Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(d) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(d) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
Faye K. WILLARD, Plaintiff, v. Robert A. WILLARD, Defendant.

No. COA15-227.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Nov. 17, 2015.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Reversed and remanded.