alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### ZEB V. SWANN and Wife, ELIZABETH SWANN v. UNITED CITIES GAS COMPANY, a Corporation, and DUKE POWER COMPANY, a Corporation.

(Filed 14 January, 1966.)

Appeals by defendants from *Clarkson, J.,*May-June 1965 Regular Session of HENDERSON.

Plaintiffs instituted this action to recover damages for the destruction, by fire and explosion, of certain laundromat equipment owned by them and located in a building which they rented, and for loss of profits during the period in which they were unable to operate .their business as a result of such firé and explosion. They allege that the fire and explosion resulted when an electric spark ignited natural gas which had escaped into the building; that the defendant Gas Company was negligent in permitting such gas to escape into the building; that the defendant Power Company was *133negligent in introducing electricity into the wiring system within the building when it knew, or should have known, that such wiring was not properly insulated so as to create a dangerous condition and that the electric spark which ignited the gas resulted from such negligence of the Power Company; that the negligence of the defendants concurred; and that the negligence of each was a proximate cause of the damage. Each defendant, in its answer, denies negligence by it and pleads contributory negligence by the plaintiffs. The jury found for the plaintiffs upon the issues of negligence and contributory negligence and found that their damages were $35,400 for destruction of their property and $3,350 for loss of profits. From a judgment in accordance with the verdict both defendants appeal.

*Prince, Jackson, Youngblood & Massagee for defendant appellant United Cities Gas Company.*

*William I. Ward, Jr., Whitmire & Whitmire, Carl Horn, Jr., Harold D. Coley, Jr., for Duke Power Company.*

*Redden, Redden & Redden for plaintiff appellees.*

LAKE, J.

This is a companion suit to the case of *Keith v. Gas Company, et al,*266 N.C. 119, 146 S.E. 2d 17. In all respects material to the appeals the pleadings in the two cases are identical. The cases were consolidated for trial. The evidence, except as to the amount of damages sustained by the respective plaintiffs, as to which there is no question raised by the appeals, is the same. In each case the defendant made joint assignments of error and these are the same in each case. Reference is, therefore, made to our opinion in the *Keith*case for a detailed discussion of the pleadings, the evidence, the assignments of error and the grounds upon which we rest our decision.

For the reasons there stated, the court below erred in denying the motion of the defendant Gas Company in this action for a judgment as of nonsuit and in permitting witnesses for the plaintiffs, found by the court to be experts, to testify in response to certain hypothetical questions, by reason of which error a new trial must be granted as to the defendant Power Company.

Reversed as to the defendant United Cities Gas Company.

New trial as to the defendant Duke Power Company.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5529 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5529

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exempt survivor benefit 
   annuity plan payments from the individual alternative minimum tax.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 15, 2010

   Mr. Carter (for himself, Mr. King of New York, Ms. Granger, Mrs. 
McMorris Rodgers, Mr. McCaul, Mr. Olson, Mr. Critz, Mr. Wilson of South 
   Carolina, Mr. Gohmert, and Mr. Rogers of Kentucky) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exempt survivor benefit 
   annuity plan payments from the individual alternative minimum tax.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Children of Fallen Warriors AMT 
Relief Act''.

SEC. 2. EXEMPTION FOR SURVIVOR BENEFIT ANNUITY PLAN PAYMENTS FROM THE 
              INDIVIDUAL ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX.

    (a) In General.--Section 59(j)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new flush sentence:
        ``Solely for purposes of this subsection, any annuity paid 
        under the Survivor Benefit Plan under subchapter II of chapter 
        73 of title 10, United States Code, shall be considered earned 
        income of such child.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to taxable years beginning after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
ex_343275.htm


Exhibit 10.33


 


AMENDMENT ONE TO THE


FRANK’S INTERNATIONAL N.V.


U.S. EXECUTIVE RETENTION AND SEVERANCE PLAN


 


 


RECITALS


 


WHEREAS, Expro Group Holdings N.V. (f/k/a Frank’s International N.V.) (the “Company”) previously adopted the Frank’s International N.V. U.S. Executive Retention and Severance Plan (the “Plan”) for the benefit of its qualifying employees;


 


WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Plan to expand the group of employees eligible to receive benefits to include non-U.S. based executives; and


 


WHEREAS, the Company has the authority to amend the Plan pursuant to Section 7.3 thereof.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that effective October 1, 2021,


 


(a)         Section 1.10 of the Plan is hereby amended by revising Subsection (c) in its entirety, to be and read as follows:


 


“(c)         is employed by the Employer as a regular employee of the Employer;”


 


(b)         Section 1.13 of the Plan is hereby amended and restated in its entirety to be and read as follows:


 


“‎1.13‎         ‎“Executive” means a full-time salaried employee of the Employer, who, at the time of selection and through the date of a Qualifying Termination, is ‎‎(A) holding the title of Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”); (B) serving as an executive officer ‎who reports directly to the CEO; (C) serving as any other senior vice president, vice president, or ‎executive vice president of the Employer who does not report directly to the CEO; or (D) serving ‎as any other full-time salaried management employee of the Employer at the time of selection.‎”


 


(c)         Section 1.9 of the Plan is hereby amended and restated in its entirety to be and read as follows:


 


“1.9         “Company” means Expro Group Holdings N.V. and any successor entity that adopts the Plan, or any subsidiary or affiliate of the Company, which is designated by the Administrator as having adopted the Plan.”


 


************


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused the Plan to be executed in its name and on its behalf as of October 1, 2021 by a duly authorized officer.


 


 





1










 








 


	 	Expro Group Holdings N.V.	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/ Michael D. Jardon	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	Its:	CEO	 
	 	 	 	 



 





2
#### BENFIELD v. TROUTMAN

No. 58 PC.

Case below: 17 N.C. App. 572.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 30 April, 1973.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 7645** 

CHRISTOPHER ODOM , Plaintiff

– Appellant ,

v. STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA TAXPAYERS; CITY OF CHARLESTON TAXPAYERS; CITY OF NORTH CHARLESTON TAXPAYERS; CARTA BUS; COUNTY OF CHARLESTON TAXPAYERS; CHARLESTON COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE; SHERIFF AL CANNON EMPLOYEES; SHERIFF AL CANNON; SHERIFF AL CANNON DETENTION CENTER; CITY OF CHARLESTON POLICE DEPARTMENT; CITY OF NORTH CHARLESTON POLICE DEPARTMENT; DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES; SOG, of Sheriff Al Cannon Detention Center; GOVERNOR NIKKI HALEY; SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH; G. WERBER BRYAN PSYCHOLOGICAL HOSPITAL; DR. FERLANTO; DR. GRISWALD; CRAFTS FARROW STATE HOSPITAL ; SCDMH EMPLOYEES; SCDMH STAFF; SCDMH SECURITY; DHEC; CHAMPUS; MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA; JUST CARE; GEO; CHARLESTON COUNTY SOLICITORS OFFICE; UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT; FOURTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS; UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT; SOUTH CARO LINA COURT OF APPEALS; DR. RUSSELL KEITH; J. BENNICE; DEFENDANTS LIABILITY INSURANCE POLICYHOLDER; ALAN WILSON; ALBERT PIERCE; SC STATE TREASURY; SCDMH HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Orangeburg

. Richard Mark Gergel , District Judge. ( 5:14

- cv - 02441

- RMG )

Submitted : March 23, 2015 Decided: April 2, 20152 Before AGEE and KEENAN , Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Christopher A. Odom, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM: Christopher Odom appeals the district court’s order adop ting in part the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing without prejudice Odom’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collater al orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541, 545

- 46 (1949). Because Odom may proceed with his claims by filing another complaint and providing factual allegations specifying how the named defendants violated his constitutional rights, the order he seeks to appeal is neither a final order with respect to those claims nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392 , 10 F.3d 1064, 1 066

- 67 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We deny Odom’s motion to amend his claim. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this c ourt and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                          5
<LEGEND>


This schedule contains summary financial information
extracted from the unaudited condensed consolidated
balance sheet as of December 31, 1999 and the unaudited
condensed consolidated statement of operations for the
six months ended December 31, 1999 and is qualified
in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.

</LEGEND>


<S>                                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                      6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                  JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                     JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                       DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                                          479,127
<SECURITIES>                                                    896,729
<RECEIVABLES>                                                29,942,673
<ALLOWANCES>                                                     702,841
<INVENTORY>                                                  35,179,108
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                             67,224,996
<PP&E>                                                       11,739,521
<DEPRECIATION>                                                5,180,424
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                               79,131,852
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                        21,831,384
<BONDS>                                                      21,301,364
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                                           0
<COMMON>                                                        406,572
<OTHER-SE>                                                   35,592,532
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                 79,131,852
<SALES>                                                      87,117,622
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                             87,117,622
<CGS>                                                        69,313,906
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                69,313,906
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                             15,227,411
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                              668,756
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                               1,907,549
<INCOME-TAX>                                                    810,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                           1,097,549
<DISCONTINUED>                                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                       0
<CHANGES>                                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                                  1,097,549
<EPS-BASIC>                                                      0.30
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                      0.30


</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, *v.*Benny Sabatino, Appellant.

*People*v. *Sabatino,*175 App". Div. 934, affirmed.

(Argued June 10, 1918;

decided July 12, 1918.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered November 24, 1916, which affirmed a judgment of the Bronx County Court rendered upon a verdict convicting the defendant of the crime of compulsory prostitution of women in violation of section 2460 of the Penal Law.

*590
      *Clark L. Jordan*for appellant.

*Francis Martin, District Attorney (Charles B. McLaughlin*of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment affirmed; no opinion.

Concur: His cock, Ch. J., Collin, Hogan, Cardozo, Pound, Crane and Andrews, JJ.
**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**




In
      connection with the quarterly report of Otelco Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q
      for the period ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Curtis L. Garner, Jr., Chief
      Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
      as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
      to my
      knowledge:




1.
            The
                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15
                (d) of
                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
                and




2.
            The
                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
                Company.








/s/
      Curtis L. Garner,
      Jr.


Curtis
      L.
      Garner, Jr.


Chief
      Financial Officer


June
      25, 2007
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 216 (Wednesday, November 9, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 68047]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-22367]


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

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION


Security for the Protection of the Public Financial 
Responsibility to Meet Liability Incurred for Death or Injury to 
Passengers or Other Persons on Voyages; Notice of Issuance of 
Certificate (Casualty)

    Notice is hereby given that the following have been issued a 
Certificate of Financial Responsibility to Meet Liability Incurred for 
Death or Injury to Passengers or Other Persons on Voyages pursuant to 
the provisions of Section 2, Public Law 89-777 (46 App. U.S.C. 817 (d)) 
and the Federal Maritime Commission's implementing regulations at 46 
CFR Part 540, as amended:

Carnival PLC (trading as P&O Cruises) and Princess Cruise Lines, Ltd., 
24305 Town Center Drive, Santa Clarita, CA 91355, Vessel: Artemis, 
Arcadia.
Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. (d/b/a Royal Caribbean International) and 
Splendour of the Seas Inc., 1050 Caribbean Way, Miami, FL 33132-2096, 
Vessel: Splendour of the Seas.
Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. (d/b/a Royal Caribbean International) and 
Legend of the Seas Inc., 1050 Caribbean Way, Miami, FL 33132-2096, 
Vessel: Legend of the Seas.

    Dated: November 4, 2005.
Bryant L. VanBrakle,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 05-22367 Filed 11-8-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-P
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5281 Engrossed Amendment Senate (EAS)]

                  In the Senate of the United States,

                                                      December 3, 2010.
    Resolved, That the bill from the House of Representatives (H.R. 
5281) entitled ``An Act to amend title 28, United States Code, to 
clarify and improve certain provisions relating to the removal of 
litigation against Federal officers or agencies to Federal courts, and 
for other purposes.'', do pass with the following

                              AMENDMENTS:

(1)On page 2, strike lines 8 through 18 and insert the following:
United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in subsection (a), in the matter preceding paragraph 
        (1)--
                    (A) by inserting ``that is'' after ``or criminal 
                prosecution'';
                    (B) by inserting ``and that is'' after ``in a State 
                court''; and
                    (C) by inserting ``or directed to'' after 
                ``against''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
    ``(c) As used in subsection (a), the terms `civil action' and 
`criminal prosecution' include any proceeding (whether or not ancillary 
to another proceeding) to the extent that in such proceeding a judicial 
order, including a subpoena for testimony or documents, is sought or 
issued. If removal is sought for a proceeding described in the previous 
sentence, and there is no other basis for removal, only that proceeding 
may be removed to the district court.''.

(2)On page 3, strike lines 4 through 19 and insert the following:
    ``(g) Where the civil action or criminal prosecution that is 
removable under section 1442(a) is a proceeding in which a judicial 
order for testimony or documents is sought or issued or sought to be 
enforced, the 30-day requirement of subsections (b) and (c) is 
satisfied if the person or entity desiring to remove the proceeding 
files the notice of removal not later than 30 days after receiving, 
through service, notice of any such proceeding.''.

(3)On page 3, strike line 23 and all that follows through page 4, line 
6, and insert the following:

SEC. 3. PAYGO COMPLIANCE.

    The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of complying 
with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go-Act of 2010, shall be determined by 
reference to the latest statement titled ``Budgetary Effects of PAYGO 
Legislation'' for this Act, submitted for printing in the Congressional 
Record by the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, provided that 
such statement has been submitted prior to the vote on passage.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
111th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H.R. 5281

_______________________________________________________________________

                               AMENDMENTS
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
September 30, 1996 Financial Statements included in the Company's Form 10-Q and
is qualified in its entirety by reference to such Form 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                            4075
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    75366
<ALLOWANCES>                                      3636
<INVENTORY>                                     146606
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                237592
<PP&E>                                          267717
<DEPRECIATION>                                  161986
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  371728
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            67338
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         69674
<OTHER-SE>                                      176135
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    371728
<SALES>                                         325390
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                325390
<CGS>                                           214057
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   214057
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  1662
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                2708
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  24241
<INCOME-TAX>                                      8848
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              15393
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     15393
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .57
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .57
        

</TABLE>
SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

- Tansmittal 13-01
- PM Ch. 2-1700, FAB Review Process
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

RICHARD MICKMAN,

Respondent

v.

ELAINE MICKMAN,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 387 MAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 30th day of November, 2021

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
#### STATE v. MERCER

No. 251

Case below: 2 N.C. App. 152.

Petition for writ of *certiorari*to North Carolina Court of Appeals allowed 15 October 1968.
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

      We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-89516, and 333-74186) and Form S-8 (Nos.
33-39627, 33-46687, 33-81986, 33-60947, 333-08597, 333-59509, 333-83563,
333-95589, 333-54436, 333-81370 and 333-102673) of Xicor, Inc. of our report
dated February 20, 2004 relating to the financial statements, which appears in
this Form 10-K.

/s/PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

San Jose, California
February 23, 2004
Written Statement of the Trustee

     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, I, the undersigned Trustee of the
Journal Employees' Stock Trust (the "Trust"), hereby certify, based on my
knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Trust for the quarter
ended June 30, 2002 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Trust.



/s/ Steven J. Smith
------------------------------------
Steven J. Smith
August 2, 2002