alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-10.2



 Exhibit 10.2 

Arrangement with Chairman of the Board Regarding Expense Reimbursement 

The Compensation Committee has approved a policy of reimbursing Gregg J. Powers for his legitimate and reasonable travel expenses incurred in connection with
his service as Chairman, including costs associated with the use of a private jet, even to the extent such expenses do not otherwise qualify for reimbursement under the Company’s usual travel expense reimbursement policy (“Additional
Travel Expenses”); provided that reimbursement of Additional Travel Expenses shall not exceed $70,000 annually.
 Mr. Powers is not paid
compensation or fees for his service as Chairman, other than the $70,000 annual cash fees payable to each member of the Company’s board of directors, and additional fees payable based on his service on board committees.
FRIDAY INVESTMENTS, LLC v. BALLY TOTAL FITNESS OF THE MID-ATLANTIC, INC., et al.

248PA16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

February 27, 2017

Lisa G. Godfrey, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, Peter R. Fenn, Attorney at Law, Ira H. Grolman, Attorney at Law, Stacy C. Cordes, Attorney at Law, for Bally Total Fitness of the Mid-Atlantic, Inc., et al.

Keith B. Nichols, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, Samuel S. Kohn, Attorney at Law, for Friday Investments, LLC.

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply Brief filed on the 23rd of February 2017 by Defendants:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 27th of February 2017."

Defendants shall have up to and including the 27th day of March 2017 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
# Official Journal C 192A/2013

| | ISSN 1977-091X
  doi:10.3000/1977091X.CA2013.192.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 192A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 563 July 2013 |

ISSN 1977-091X

doi:10.3000/1977091X.CA2013.192.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 192A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 563 July 2013

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Announcements |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | European Commission |
| 2013/C 192A/01 | Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development (DG AGRI) — Publication of a vacancy notice for a Director Position (AD 14) in Brussels — Directorate: ‘Direct support, management of market measures, promotion’ (Article 29, paragraph 2 of the Staff Regulations) — COM/2013/10336 | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Commission

2013/C 192A/01

Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development (DG AGRI) — Publication of a vacancy notice for a Director Position (AD 14) in Brussels — Directorate: ‘Direct support, management of market measures, promotion’ (Article 29, paragraph 2 of the Staff Regulations) — COM/2013/10336

1

---

REVIEW OF COMPETITION C A OJs

Please find below the list of C A published during the present year.

Unless otherwise indicated, OJs are published in all language versions.

| 5 | |
| --- | --- |
| 27 | (RO) |
| 29 | |
| 33 | |
| 34 | |
| 36 | (DA) |
| 41 | (BG) |
| 43 | (EN) |
| 49 | (ET) |
| 50 | (HU) |
| 51 | (SL) |
| 54 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 58 | (EN/GA) |
| 75 | |
| 81 | |
| 82 | |
| 88 | (BG) |
| 89 | (CS) |
| 94 | |
| 104 | |
| 109 | |
| 111 | |
| 112 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 117 | (ET) |
| 118 | |
| 120 | |
| 131 | |
| 143 | |
| 160 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 162 | |
| 166 | |
| 167 | |
| 168 | |
| 172 | |
| 173 | |
| 174 | |
| 176 | (BG/DE/EN/ET/FI/IT/LT/LV/MT/NL/PL/PT/SK/SL/SV) |
| 180 | (MT) |
| 182 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 183 | (IT) |
| 191 | |
| 192 | |

5

27

(RO)

29

33

34

36

(DA)

41

(BG)

43

(EN)

49

(ET)

50

(HU)

51

(SL)

54

(DE/EN/FR)

58

(EN/GA)

75

81

82

88

(BG)

89

(CS)

94

104

109

111

112

(DE/EN/FR)

117

(ET)

118

120

131

143

160

(DE/EN/FR)

162

166

167

168

172

173

174

176

(BG/DE/EN/ET/FI/IT/LT/LV/MT/NL/PL/PT/SK/SL/SV)

180

(MT)

182

(DE/EN/FR)

183

(IT)

191

192

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A16A1792. JERMAINE SPENCE v. THE STATE.

On April 23, 2014, the trial court civilly committed Jermaine Spence to the

custody of the Department of Behavioral Health & Developmental Disabilities. On

April 2, 2015, the trial court entered an order continuing Spence’s civil commitment. 

Thereafter, on May 11, 2015, Spence filed a notice of appeal.

1 We, however, lack

jurisdiction.

To be timely, a notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days after entry of the

appealable order. See OCGA § 5-6-38 (a). The proper and timely filing of a notice

of appeal is an absolute requirement to confer jurisdiction on this Court. See Couch

v. United Paperworkers Intl. Union, 224 Ga. App. 721 (482 SE2d 704) (1997). 

Spence filed his notice of appeal 39 days after the trial court’s continuing civil

commitment order. Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to consider Spence’s untimely

appeal, which is hereby DISMISSED. See OCGA § 5-6-48 (b) (1).

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

1 Spence originally filed his appeal in the Georgia Supreme Court, which

transferred the case to this Court after finding no basis for jurisdiction.

06/07/2016

June 07, 2016
# C_2016038EN.01006102.xml

| 1.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/61 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/61

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 10 December 2015 — GGP Italy v Commission

(Case T-474/15 R)

((Interim measures - Directive 2006/42/EC - Protection of the health and safety of consumers and workers against risks arising from the use of machinery - Measure taken by the Latvian authorities prohibiting a type of lawnmower - Commission Decision declaring the measure justified - Application to suspend operation - Lack of urgency))

(2016/C 038/83)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Global Garden Products Italy SpA (GGP Italy) (Castelfranco Veneto, Italy) (represented by: A. Villani, L. D’Amario and M. Caccialanza, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Braga da Cruz and L. Cappelletti, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application to suspend the operation of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/902 of 10 June 2015 on a measure taken by Latvia in accordance with Directive 2006/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council to prohibit the placing on the market of a lawnmower manufactured by GGP Italy SpA (OJ 2015 L 147, p. 22).

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The costs are reserved.

---
# C_2006212EN.01003001.xml

| 2.9.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 212/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.9.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 212/30

---

Action brought on 23 June 2006 — ARBOS v Commission

(Case T-161/06)

(2006/C 212/54)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant(s): ARBOS, Gesellschaft für Musik und Theater (Klagenfurt, Austria) (represented by: H. Karl, lawyer)

Applicant(s):

Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities

Defendant(s):

Form of order sought

| — | Order that the defendant pay the claimant EUR 38 545,42 plus 12 % interest since 1.1.2001 and EUR 27 618,91 plus 12 % interest since 1.3.2003; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order that the defendant pay the claimant EUR 38 545,42 plus 12 % interest since 1.1.2001 and EUR 27 618,91 plus 12 % interest since 1.3.2003;

| — | Order that the defendant pay the claimant EUR 26 459,38 in pre-litigation costs and bear the costs of the proceedings |
| --- | --- |

—

Order that the defendant pay the claimant EUR 26 459,38 in pre-litigation costs and bear the costs of the proceedings

Pleas in law and main arguments

The claimant claims compensation from the European Commission under Article 288 EC for the damage it claims to have suffered from the wrongful withholding of assistance. It bases its claim on two contracts for assistance concluded in 2000 in 2002 and each containing an arbitration clause in the annex.

---
# Official Journal C 3/2008

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 3 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 518 January 2008 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 3

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 518 January 2008

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Resolutions, recommendations and opinions |
| | OPINIONS |
| | Commission |
| 2008/C 003/01 | Commission opinion of 7 January 2008 on interim measures taken by the government of Denmark in respect of high velocity pressure/vacuum relief valves with flame screen of model HPV manufactured by Se-won Ind Co. in the Republic of Korea (1) | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

I   Resolutions, recommendations and opinions

OPINIONS

Commission

2008/C 003/01

Commission opinion of 7 January 2008 on interim measures taken by the government of Denmark in respect of high velocity pressure/vacuum relief valves with flame screen of model HPV manufactured by Se-won Ind Co. in the Republic of Korea (1)

1

---

| | II   Information |
| --- | --- |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES |
| | Commission |
| 2008/C 003/02 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.4853 — PPG/SigmaKalon) (1) | 5 |
| 2008/C 003/03 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.4964 — Sun Capital Funds/Mark IV) (1) | 5 |

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES

Commission

2008/C 003/02

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.4853 — PPG/SigmaKalon) (1)

5

2008/C 003/03

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.4964 — Sun Capital Funds/Mark IV) (1)

5

---

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES |
| | Commission |
| 2008/C 003/04 | Euro exchange rates | 6 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES

Commission

2008/C 003/04

Euro exchange rates

6

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMPETITION POLICY |
| | Commission |
| 2008/C 003/05 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.5016 — Triton/Ruetgers) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (1) | 7 |

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMPETITION POLICY

Commission

2008/C 003/05

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.5016 — Triton/Ruetgers) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (1)

7

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
STATE of North Carolina v. Ty DAVIS, Defendant.

No. COA 15-507.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

April 5, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Vacated and Remanded.
_________________________________________ 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 9, 2008 

135722(11) 

ENBRIDGE ENERGY, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, 

Plaintiff, 

v 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL, 

Defendant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 SC: 135722 

MTT: 0301679 

Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

Justices 

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s June 4, 2008 

order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was 

entered erroneously. 

d0828 

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. 

September 9, 2008 

 Clerk
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 23-0457

In the Matter of, 

S.G.,

an Alleged Mentally Ill Person,

Defendant and Appellant.

GRANT

Pursuant to authority granted under Mont. R. App. P. 26(1), the 

Appellant is given an extension of time until December 1, 2023, to 

prepare, file, and serve the Appellant’s opening brief.

Electronically signed by:

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of the Supreme Court

October 25 2023

10/25/2023

Case Number: DA 23-0457
NO. 07-07-0162-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL B

OCTOBER 20, 2008

______________________________

ALFRED WILLIAM WARD,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, 

Appellee

_________________________________

FROM THE 31 DISTRICT COURT OF LIPSCOMB COUNTY; ST

NO. 1090; HON. STEVEN EMMERT, PRESIDING

_______________________________

Memorandum Opinion

_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.

Alfred William Ward (appellant) appeals from a final judgment revoking his

probation. Through a single issue, he contends that the trial court abused its discretion in

purportedly reinstating, sua sponte, the motion to revoke probation that it had previously

dismissed per the State’s request. Not only did the court exceed its authority in reinstating

the matter, but its doing so effectively denied him due process since he lacked notice of

the allegations in the reinstated motion, he concludes. We affirm.
2

Appellant was charged with and pled guilty to burglary of a habitation with intent to

commit assault. Per a plea agreement, he was sentenced to ten years in prison. The

sentence was suspended, and the trial court placed him on probation for seven years.

Subsequently, the State sought to revoke that probation. It then moved to dismiss its

motion, and the trial court granted that request. Later the same day, however, the trial

court withdrew its dismissal order and reinstated the State’s motion to revoke. At the

revocation hearing, appellant pled true to all of the allegations in the motion. Thereafter,

the trial court revoked appellant’s probation and sentenced him to five years in prison. 

Appellant now contends that the trial court erred in reinstating the motion to revoke

and withdrawing its prior order dismissing the State’s motion. We note that the State did

not object to the trial court’s decision to reinstate the motion. Nor did the allegations in the

reinstated motion change from those initially averred. More importantly, the appellant

never objected (of record) to the order reinstating the motion, to the prosecution of the

motion once it was reinstated, or to the revocation hearing. Nor did appellant claim

surprise or request a continuance at the hearing; indeed, he even waived reading of the

motion to revoke. 

In sum, none of the complaints before us have been preserved for review. See

Hardeman v. State, 1 S.W.3d 689, 690 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999); Liggett v. State, 998

S.W.2d 733, 736 (Tex. App.–Beaumont 1999, no pet.). Accordingly, we overrule his sole

issue. 

The judgment revoking probation is affirmed.

Per Curiam

Do not publish.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2


                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


The Members
CapStar Winston Company, L.L.C.:


We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements of
Winston Hotels, Inc. on Form S-3 (File Nos. 333-86457, 333-93516, 333-32713 and
333-60651) and Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-19197, 333-60619 and 333-60079) of our
report dated February 22, 2002 with respect to the balance sheets of CapStar
Winston Company, L.L.C. as of December 31, 2001 and 2000 and the related
statements of operations, members' capital and cash flows for each of the years
in the three-year period ended December 31, 2001, which report appears in the
December 31, 2001 annual report on From 10-K of Winston Hotels, Inc.



KPMG LLP

Raleigh, North Carolina
March 7, 2002
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         507,041
<SECURITIES>                                 1,003,530
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,233,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (214,000)
<INVENTORY>                                  2,695,961
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             8,562,266
<PP&E>                                       4,681,585
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,843,469)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              12,262,324
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,178,245
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          2
<COMMON>                                       104,077
<OTHER-SE>                                   9,802,618
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                12,262,324
<SALES>                                      6,257,840
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,257,840
<CGS>                                        3,565,393
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,565,393
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             8,142,321
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              63,896
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              5,289,684
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          5,289,684
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 5,289,684
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.601)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.601)


</TABLE>
# C_2009193EN.01002001.xml

| 15.8.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 193/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 193/20

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 1 July 2009 — Okalux v OHIM — Messe Düsseldorf (OKATECH)

(Case T-419/07) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Forfeiture proceedings - Community word mark OKATECH - Partial revocation - Period allowed for appeal - Articles 57 and 77a of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Articles 58 and 80 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - Principles of protection of legitimate expectations and legal certainty - Right to a hearing)

2009/C 193/29

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Okalux GmbH (Marktheidenfeld, Germany) (represented by: M. Beckensträter, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S. Schäffner, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Messe Düsseldorf GmbH (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented initially by: I Friedhoff, and subsequently by: S. von Petersdorff-Campen, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 September 2007 (Case R 766/2007-2) concerning forfeiture proceedings between Messe Düsseldorf GmbH and Okalux GmbH.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Okalux GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Okalux GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 8, 12.1.2008.

1

---
Exhibit 18.1

Board of Directors
General Media, Inc. and Subsidiaries

As stated in Note 3 to the consolidated financial statements of General Media,
Inc. and Subsidiaries (the "Company") for the year ended December 31, 1997, the
Company changed its accounting policy for inventory from last-in, first-out
("LIFO") to first-in, first-out ("FIFO"). Management believes the newly adopted
accounting principle is preferable in the circumstances because, under the
current economic environment of low inflation, the FIFO method will result in a
better measurement of operating results. At your request, we have reviewed and
discussed with management the circumstances, business judgment, and planning
that formed the basis for making this change in accounting principle.

It should be recognized that professional standards have not been established
for selecting among alternative principles that exist in this area or for
evaluating the preferability of alternative accounting principles. Accordingly,
we are furnishing this letter solely for purposes of the Company's compliance
with the requirements of the Securities and Exchange Commission, and it should
not be used or relied on for any other purpose.

Based on our review and discussion, we concur with management's judgment that
the newly adopted accounting principle is preferable in the circumstances. In
formulating this position, we are relying management's business planning and
judgment, which we do not find unreasonable.

Very truly yours,


/s/ Grant Thornton LLP
STATE of North Carolina v. Demarcus Lamont CATES

No. COA16-672

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: May 2, 2017

NO ERROR.
JING ZENG, Plaintiff, v. Brett Durmont DURHAM and The Wendy's Company, Defendants.

No. COA16-1276

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: May 16, 2017

AFFIRMED.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4072 

To prohibit the use of funds appropriated to any Federal department or 

agency to provide technical assistance to nongovernment entities for 

the production of motion pictures, television shows, and other audiovisual 

programs. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 21, 2014 

Mr. BARROW of Georgia introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To prohibit the use of funds appropriated to any Federal 

department or agency to provide technical assistance to 

nongovernment entities for the production of motion pictures, television shows, and other audiovisual programs. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FEDERAL FUNDS TO 

4 PROVIDE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FOR MO5 TION PICTURES, TELEVISION SHOWS, AND 

6 OTHER AUDIOVISUAL PROGRAMS. 

7 No Federal department or agency may obligate or ex8 pend funds appropriated to the department or agency for 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

•HR 4072 IH

1 a fiscal year to provide technical assistance to any non2 government entity for the production of any motion pic3 ture, television show, documentary, music videos, commer4 cial advertisement, CD–ROM game, or other audiovisual 

5 program. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
REXNORD CORPORATION, et al. v. SUN DRAINAGE PRODUCTS, LLC, et al.

157A17-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 17, 2017

Benjamin P. Fryer, Sarah H. Negus, Attorneys at Law, Charlotte, E. Taylor Stukes, Attorney at Law, for Rexnord Corporation, et al.

William S. Cherry, III, J. Whitfield Gibson, Attorneys at Law, Raleigh, for Sun Drainage Products, LLC.

Thomas C. Kilpatrick, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Bauer, James R.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 11th of August 2017 Joint motion:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 17th of August 2017."