alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## NO. 12

- 18

- 00029

- CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

TONJA AUGMON, INDEPE NDENT

ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE

OF OBANELYVIA CUNNIN GHAM,

DECEASED,

APPELLANT

V.

LYDIA NANEZ,

APPELLEE §

§

§ APPEAL FROM THE

COUNTY COURT OF

SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Tonja Augmon, Independent Administrator of the Estate of Obanelyvia Cunningham,

deceased filed a n agreed motion to dismiss this appeal. In her motion, Augmon states that the

parties have reached a settlement agreement. The motion is signed by counsel for each party.

Because Augmon has met the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a)(1), we

grant the agreed motion, and dismiss the appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(1).

Opinion delivered October 2 9 , 2018.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

( PUBLISH )

## COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

OCTOBER 2 9 , 2018

NO. 12

- 18

- 00029

- CV

TONJA AUGMON, INDEPE NDENT ADMINISTRATOR OF

THE ESTATE OF OBANELYVIA CUNNINGHAM, DECEASE D,
Appellant

V.

LYDIA NANEZ,
Appellee

Appeal from the County Court

of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 42,220P)

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the agreed motion of the Appellant to

dismiss the appeal herein, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that the

motion to dismiss be granted

.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this c ourt that this

appeal be, and the same is, hereby dismissed and that all costs of this appeal be, and the same are,

adjudged against the party that incurred them; for which execution may issue; and that this decision

be certified to the court below for obs ervance.

By per curiam opinion

. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.
# L_2007076EN.01001801.xml

| 16.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 76/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 76/18

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 277/2007

of 15 March 2007

concerning tenders notified in response to the invitation to tender for the export of common wheat issued in Regulation (EC) No 936/2006

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 of 29 September 2003 on the common organisation of the market in cereals (1), and in particular Article 13(3) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | An invitation to tender for the refund for the export of common wheat to certain third countries was opened pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 936/2006 (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

An invitation to tender for the refund for the export of common wheat to certain third countries was opened pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 936/2006 (2).

| (2) | Article 7 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1501/95 of 29 June 1995 laying down certain detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 on the granting of export refunds on cereals and the measures to be taken in the event of disturbance on the market for cereals (3), and in particular Article 13(3) thereof, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Article 7 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1501/95 of 29 June 1995 laying down certain detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 on the granting of export refunds on cereals and the measures to be taken in the event of disturbance on the market for cereals (3), and in particular Article 13(3) thereof,

| (3) | On the basis of the criteria laid down in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1501/95, a maximum refund should not be fixed. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

On the basis of the criteria laid down in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1501/95, a maximum refund should not be fixed.

| (4) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals, |
| --- | --- |

(4)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

No action shall be taken on the tenders notified from 9 to 15 March 2007 in response to the invitation to tender for the refund for the export of common wheat issued in Regulation (EC) No 936/2006.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 16 March 2007.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 15 March 2007.

For the Commission

Jean-Luc DEMARTY

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

---

(1)  
  OJ L 270, 21.10.2003, p. 78. Regulation as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1154/2005 (OJ L 187, 19.7.2005, p. 11).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 172, 24.6.2006, p. 6.

2

(3)  
  OJ L 147, 30.6.1995, p. 7. Regulation as last modified by Regulation (EC) No 777/2004 (OJ L 123, 27.4.2004, p. 50).

3

---
Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (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.
 Signature:
    
    /s/ Ralph P. ScozzafavaRalph P. ScozzafavaChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)Date:
    
    August 7, 2009
# L_2007335EN.01000801.xml

| 20.12.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 335/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 335/8

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1514/2007

of 19 December 2007

on the issuing of import licences for applications lodged during the first seven days of December 2007 under the tariff quota opened by Regulation (EC) No 1382/2007 for pigmeat

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2759/75 of 29 October 1975 on the common organisation of the market in pigmeat (1),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1382/2007 of 26 November 2007 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 774/94 concerning the import arrangements for pigmeat (2), and in particular Article 5(6) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Regulation (EC) No 1382/2007 has opened tariff quotas for the import of pigmeat products. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Regulation (EC) No 1382/2007 has opened tariff quotas for the import of pigmeat products.

| (2) | The applications for import licences lodged during the first seven days of December 2007 for the subperiod 1 January to 31 March 2008 do not cover the total quantity available. The quantities for which applications have not been lodged should therefore be determined and these should be added to the quantity fixed for the following quota subperiod, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The applications for import licences lodged during the first seven days of December 2007 for the subperiod 1 January to 31 March 2008 do not cover the total quantity available. The quantities for which applications have not been lodged should therefore be determined and these should be added to the quantity fixed for the following quota subperiod,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The quantities for which import licence applications covered by the quota bearing the serial number 09.4046 have not been lodged under Regulation (EC) No 1382/2007, to be added to the subperiod from 1 April to 30 June 2008, shall be 1 750 000 kg.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 20 December 2007.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 19 December 2007.

For the Commission

Jean-Luc DEMARTY

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

---

(1)  
  OJ L 282, 1.11.1975, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1913/2005 (OJ L 307, 25.11.2005, p. 2). Regulation (EEC) No 2759/75 will be replaced by Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 (OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1) as from 1 July 2008.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 309, 27.11.2007, p. 28.

2

---
#### Susan SORRELLS, Plaintiff, v. ELI LILLY AND COMPANY, Defendant.

Civ. A. No. 89-2073.

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

May 24, 1990.

Aaron M. Levine, Brandon J. Levine, Aaron M. Levine & Associates, Washington, D.C., for plaintiff.

James A. Hourihan, Hogan & Hartson, Washington, D.C., Marshall Simonds, P.C., Loretta M. Smith, Goodwin, Procter *&*Hoar, Boston, Mass., for defendant.

ORDER

REVERCOMB, District Judge.

Plaintiff, Susan Sorrells, claims that she and her infant daughter Shanna were injured due to her mother’s ingestion of the drug diethylstilbestrol (“DES”) in 1951-1952 when she was pregnant with Susan. Susan’s daughter, Shanna, was not exposed to DES in any way, but claims that her grandmother’s use of DES affected her mother’s ability to carry her to term, thus causing Shanna’s profound hearing loss and other injuries. At bar is defendant’s motion to dismiss all of Shanna’s individual claims of negligence and strict liability on the grounds that Lilly owed no foreseeable duty to Shanna and plaintiff’s motion for certification of the issue to the Maryland Court of Appeals.1

The Court DENIES plaintiff’s motion for certification. Plaintiff picked the instant forum, knowing full well of the legal issues the case presented and “is in a particularly poor position to seek certification.” *Tidler v. Eli Lilly & Co.,*851 F.2d 418, 426 (D.C.Cir.1988). The fact that defendant has re*679moved similar cases in the past is unpersuasive.

Defendant’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED. The law of Maryland at this time does not extend defendant’s duty to the unborn granddaughter of a mother who ingested DES. *Renee L. Welan v. Eli Lilly and Company,*Civil Action No. 87-2620, Order dated July 1, 1988; see also *Jacques v. First National Bank of Maryland,*307 Md. 527, 515 A.2d 756 (1986). Shanna Sorrell’s claims are dismissed without prejudice.

A Motions/Settlement Conference/Status Hearing will be held on August 24, 1990 at 9:30 a.m.

1

. At oral argument, plaintiff withdrew her motion for partial summary judgment.
#### JOHN WESLEY JOHNSON, Jr., Appellant, v. SHERIFF, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA, Respondent.

No. 7870

March 17, 1975

532 P.2d 1037

*162
      *M. Daniel Markoff,*Las Vegas, for Appellant.

*Robert List,*Attorney General, Carson City; *George E. Holt,*District Attorney, and *Joel M. Cooper,*Deputy, Clark County, for Respondent.

OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

A Las Vegas Police Officer heard from an undisclosed informant that John Wesley Johnson, Jr., was willing to pay a hired assassin $60,000.00.

The officer, feigning that he was a “hit man for hire,” from out of state, had several telephone conversations with a person who represented himself to be Johnson. Details of the proposed killing were discussed; however, the two men never met face to face. Instead, the officer recruited a second officer, who did have two face to face meetings with Johnson.

According to the second officer, the identity, habits and *163residence of the proposed victims were discussed at these meetings, and the method to be used in accomplishing their proposed demise and disposition of bodies, as well. Shortly after the second meeting Johnson was arrested, and charged with attempted capital murder and conspiracy to commit murder.

Following preliminary examination Johnson was ordered to stand trial for the charged offenses. He then sought habeas relief in the district court, which was denied, and challenges that ruling by this appeal.

1. The elements of an attempt to commit a crime were delineated by this court in State v. Thompson, 31 Nev. 209, 216, 101 P. 557, 559 (1909). There, we said the prosecution must establish (1) the intent to commit the crime, (2) performance of some act towards its commission, and, (3) failure to consummate its commission. See Mathis v. State, 82 Nev. 402, 419 P.2d 775 (1966).

In State v. Charley Lung, 21 Nev. 209, 28 P. 235 (1891), this court noted that devising or arranging the means and measures necessary for the commission of the offense is merely preparation; and, the attempt is the direct movement toward the commission, after the preparation is made.

Here, although intent to commit the crime was shown, the discussions testified to by the feigned “hit man” were but preparation; they did not constitute the second element, performance of an overt act toward the commission of the crime. Compare People v. Adami, 111 Cal.Rptr. 544 (Cal.App. 1973), which held there was no “attempt” where, besides solicitation and discussion, there had been the payment of a sum of money to the proposed “hit man.”

2. A conspiracy requires an agreement by at least two people. When one of two persons merely pretends to agree, the other party, whatever he may believe, is in fact not conspiring with anyone. Delaney v. State, 51 S.W.2d 485 (Tenn. 1932).

The district judge should have granted the habeas petition, without prejudice to the institution of appropriate charges.

Accordingly, we reverse, without prejudice.
Order entered September 19, 2017

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-17-00482-CV

FEYSAL AYATI-GHAFFARI, Appellant

V.

JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, ET AL., Appellees

On Appeal from the 417th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 417-03108-2013

ORDER

Before the Court is “Appellant’s Request Written Proof of Party’s Standing” filed by pro 

se appellant on September 8, 2017. We DENY the request.

/s/ CRAIG STODDART 

JUSTICE
#### Rajinder SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto GONZALES,* Attorney General, Respondent.

Nos. 03-71472, 03-72975.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 4, 2005.**

Decided April 11, 2005.

Martin Resendez Guajardo, Esq., Law Office of Martin Resendez Guajardo, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.

Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Linda S. Wendtland, Esq., Cindy S. Ferrier, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: KOZINSKI, HAWKINS, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

*

 Alberto Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor, John Ashcroft, as Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).

**

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM ***

In these consolidated petitions, Rajinder Singh, a native and citizen of India, seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of a continuance to allow Singh to obtain new counsel (No. 03-71472) and the BIA’s denial of his motion to reopen proceedings in order to apply for adjustment of status (No. 03-72975). We deny both petitions for review.

The IJ did not abuse his discretion in denying a continuance to allow Singh to obtain a new attorney. *See Nakamoto v. Ashcroft,*363 F.3d 874, 883 n. 6 (9th Cir. 2004) (reviewing an IJ’s denial of a motion for continuance for abuse of discretion). The IJ granted Singh one continuance to obtain a new attorney. At the next scheduled hearing, Singh appeared with the same attorney and told the IJ that he wanted the attorney to represent him. Given the information the IJ had before him, it was not an abuse of discretion to deny the continuance. We do not consider whether the denial of the continuance resulted in a due process violation because Singh’s counseled brief fails to properly argue the issue. *See Martinez-Serrano v. INS,*94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir.1996) (“Issues raised in a brief that are not supported by argument are deemed abandoned.”).

The BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen is reviewed for abuse of discretion and will only be reversed if it is “arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law.” *Singh v. INS,*295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir.2002) (citation omitted). Because Singh failed to produce clear and convincing evidence indicating his marriage was bona fide, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen. *See Malhi v. INS,*336 F.3d 989, 994 (9th Cir.2003).

*213The voluntary departure period was stayed, and that stay will expire upon issuance of the mandate. *See Desta v. Ashcroft,*365 F.3d 741 (9th Cir.2004).

PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, Douglas L. Schmick, Chief Executive Officer, in connection with the
Report on Form 10-Q of McCormick & Schmicks Seafood Restaurants, Inc. for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007 (the Report), hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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 McCormick & Schmicks Seafood Restaurants, Inc.



|                        |  | 
|----------------------- |  | 
|/s/ DOUGLAS L. SCHMICK  |  | 
|Douglas L. Schmick      |  | 
|Chief Executive Officer |  | 

Dated: May 9, 2007
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED> 
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         3784895
<SECURITIES>                                     40000
<RECEIVABLES>                                  1541503
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (44249)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              34610097
<PP&E>                                       125141637
<DEPRECIATION>                                 4278754
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               164694029
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         75911093
<BONDS>                                       76094181
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                   36246975
<COMMON>                                      27956119
<OTHER-SE>                                    11448839
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 164694029
<SALES>                                       68347904
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              68465876
<CGS>                                         60318155
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 73181210
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               8772579
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 34249
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             2500702
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (13487913)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     62044
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (13549957)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              (3837625)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (17387582)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.48)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.48)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 4.24

  

   

    

  
    
      CERTAIN CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT, MARKED BY [***], HAS BEEN OMITTED BECAUSE IT IS BOTH
          (I) NOT MATERIAL AND (II) IS THE TYPE THAT IMMUNOCORE TREATS AS PRIVATE OR CONFIDENTIAL.

    

    

    

    
       

      

      

    

    October 8, 2021

    

    

    Immunocore Limited

    92 Park Drive

    Milton Park

    Abingdon

    Oxon

    OX14 4RY

    United Kingdom

    

    

    Attn: Dr.Bahija Jallal, CEO

    

    

    Dear Dr. Jallal:

    

    

    Reference is made to that certain Collaboration and Licence Agreement between Immunocore Limited (“Immunocore”) and GlaxoSmithKline Intellectual Property
      Development Limited (“GSK”) dated June 29, 2013, as amended from time to time (the “Agreement”). Terms not defined in this letter have the meanings ascribed to them in the Agreement.

    

    

    Following from discussions internally at GSK, GSK has decided to terminate the Agreement in its entirety pursuant to Section 13.2(a). Termination of the
      Agreement will be effective 90 Business Days from the date of this notice. We will be in touch shortly to discuss next steps and which of the provisions of Section 13.6, if any, are applicable to the remaining Collaboration Program directed to [***].

     

    GlaxoSmithKline Intellectual Property Development Limited

     

    Sincerely,

     

    	
            /s/ John Sadler

          	

          	
            /s/ Claire MacLeod

          	 
	
            Mr J Sadler

          	 	
            Mrs C MacLeod

          	 
	
            Authorised Signatory

            For and on behalf of

            Glaxo Group Limited

            Corporate Director

          	 	
            Authorised Signatory

            For and on behalf of

            Edinburgh Pharmaceutical Industries Limited

            Corporate Director

          


    

    

    
      
        CERTAIN CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT, MARKED BY [***], HAS BEEN OMITTED BECAUSE IT IS BOTH
            (I) NOT MATERIAL AND (II) IS THE TYPE THAT IMMUNOCORE TREATS AS PRIVATE OR CONFIDENTIAL.
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 10.40

                               AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO
                    AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

This Amendment No. 2 is made effective as of October 1, 2004, by and between
Mercury Air Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation (hereinafter referred to as
"Employer"), and Mr. Joseph A. Czyzyk (hereinafter referred to as "Employee").

      WHEREAS, Employer and Employee entered into that certain Amended and
Restated Employment Agreement Dated May 22, 2002 ( as amended by Amendment No. 1
dated August 13, 2002, the "Employment Agreement");

      WHEREAS, the duties of the Employee have increased and the Compensation
Committee has determined that Employee's compensation no longer reflect his
responsibilities and the current norms and standards prevalent in the industry
today; and

      WHEREAS, Employer and Employee wish to amend the Employment Agreement to
reflect the wishes of the Compensation Committee of Employer and to amend and
restate Paragraph Third: Compensation, section (a) in its entirety to read as
follows:

Third: Compensation

      (a) Base Compensation. For all services rendered by Employee to Employer
under this Agreement, Employer shall pay Employee a salary of $770,000 per year,
payable in semi-monthly installments in accordance with Employer's standard
payroll practices. Form time to time, the salary payable to Employee may be
increased at the sole discretion of the Compensation Committee of the Board of
Directors (the "Compensation Committee"). Employee's annual salary, as from time
to time increased by the Compensation Committee, is hereinafter referred to as
"Base Compensation."

      All other terms and conditions of the Employment Agreement remain
unchanged and in full force and effect.

Mercury Air Group, Inc.

_______________________
Wayne J. Lovett
Executive Vice President
General Counsel & Secretary

_______________________
Joseph A. Czyzyk, Individually