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



Exhibit 4.1.1 AMENDMENT TO THE CNH GLOBAL N.V.
OUTSIDE DIRECTORS COMPENSATION PLAN This Amendment to the Outside Directors Compensation Plan (the Plan) which was last amended
and restated as of May 8, 2003 is hereby made effective as of April 26, 2004 following approval by
the shareholders of CNH Global N.V. The Plan is hereby amended as follows:  1.
    The last sentence of Section 1(c) of the Plan is hereby amended and restated
to read as follows: Such payment will be made at the earliest possible date after the
end of the Plan Year Quarter in which the relevant meeting(s) was/were attended.2.
    Appendix A of the Plan is hereby amended and restated in its entirety and the
Appendix A attached hereto is hereby substituted for the Appendix A previously
attached to the Plan.




---



##### 



Appendix A  Schedule of Outside Directors Compensation Annual Fees (1): Outside Director serving as Chairman of the Board
    
    $
    150,000 Each other Outside Director
    
    $
    40,000 Annual Committee Chair fee:
    
    $
    5,000Meeting Fees (2): Board meeting fee: (for each meeting attended)
    
    $
    1,250 Committee meeting fee: (for each meeting attended)
    
    $
    1,250
 Annual Automatic Stock Option Grant:
    
    4,000 stock options
   (1)
    
    Payable each Plan Year Quarter in Common Shares unless otherwise elected (cash or stock
options).(2)
    
    Payable only in cash as soon as possible after the end of each Plan Year Quarter. At the beginning of the Fifth Plan Year in May 2003, any eligible Outside Director will be entitled
to receive a one-time grant of an amount of stock options equal to 20% of the Annual Automatic
Stock Options and 15% of the Elective Stock Options he or she has been granted prior to May 6,
2002.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 4 (Monday, January 7, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 1262]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 08-19]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration


Sunshine Act Meetings; Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board of 
Directors

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

Time and Date:  January 14, 2008, 1 p.m. to 5 p.m., and January 15, 
2008, 8 a.m. to 12 p.m., Eastern Standard Time.

Place:  This meeting will take place at the Belleview Biltmore, 25 
Belleview Boulevard, Clearwater, Florida 33756.

Status:  Open to the public.

Matters to be Considered:  The Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board 
of Directors (the Board) will continue its work in developing and 
implementing the Unified Carrier Registration Plan and Agreement and to 
that end, may consider matters properly before the Board.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Mr. Avelino Gutierrez, Chair, Unified 
Carrier Registration Board of Directors at (505) 827-4565.

    Dated: December 27, 2007.
William A. Quade,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement and Program Delivery.
[FR Doc. 08-19 Filed 1-3-08; 12:20 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-15-00385-CR

SOPHIA CASTILLO,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 40th District Court

Ellis County, Texas

Trial Court No. 39226CR

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Sophia Castillo was convicted of the offense of fraudulent use or possession of 

identifying information, which was enhanced to a third degree felony by two prior state 

jail felony convictions. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 32.51 (West 2011). Castillo was 

sentenced to the maximum sentence of ten years in prison and a $10,000 fine. In two 

issues, Castillo complains that her sentence violates her rights pursuant to the United 

States and Texas Constitutions because the sentence is grossly disproportionate to the 

crime and inappropriate as applied to her.
Castillo v. State Page 2

At trial, Castillo never objected to the sentence she received nor did she file a 

motion for new trial on the basis that her sentence violated the 8th Amendment to the 

United States Constitution or Article I, Section 13 of the Texas Constitution. See U.S.

CONST. amend. VIII; TEX. CONST. art. I, § 13. An objection on this basis must be made to 

the trial court in order to be preserved. Because no such objection was made, we find 

that Castillo's complaints were not preserved for our review. TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a)(1)(A); 

Wilson v. State, 71 S.W.3d 346, 349 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002); Broxton v. State, 909 S.W.2d 912, 

918 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (reviewing court will not consider errors, even of 

constitutional magnitude, not called to the trial court's attention). See also Rhoades v. State, 

934 S.W.2d 113, 120 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (holding that complaint relating to 

constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment was waived when no 

objection on this basis was made in trial court). Because Castillo's first and second issues 

were not preserved, they are overruled.

Conclusion

Having found that Castillo's complaints were not properly preserved, we affirm 

the judgment of the trial court.

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice
Castillo v. State Page 3

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Affirmed

Opinion delivered and filed September 21, 2016

Do not publish

[CR25]
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 13 (Friday, January 18, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3467-3468]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 08-226]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Notices

Date And Time: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 at 10 a.m.

Place: 999 E. Street, NW., Washington, DC.

[[Page 3468]]


Status: This meeting will be closed to the public.

Items to be Discussed:
    Compliance matters pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 437g.
    Audits conducted pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 437g, 438(b), and Title 26, 
U.S.C.
    Matters concerning participation in civil actions or proceedings or 
arbitration.
    Internal personnel rules and procedures or matters affecting a 
particular employee.

Date And Time: Thursday, January 24, 2008 at 10 a.m.

Place: 999 E. Street, NW., Washington, DC (Ninth Floor).

Status: This meeting will be open to the public.

Items to be Discussed:
    Correction and Approval of Minutes.
    Election of Vice Chairman.
    Advisory Opinion 2007-32: SpeechNow.org by counsel, Bradley A. 
Smith, Stephen M. Hoersting, William H. ``Chip'' Mello, Steven Simpson, 
and Paul M. Sherman.
    Advisory Opinion 2007-33: Club for Growth by counsel, Carol A. 
Laham and D. Mark Renaud.
    Advisory Opinion 2007-35: FreeCause, Inc. by counsel, Joseph E. 
Sandler, Neil P. Reiff, and Jonathan Zucker.
    Advisory Opinion 2007-36: People for Pete Domenici by counsel, 
Donald F. McGahn II, Management and Administrative Matters.

Person to Contact for Information: Robert Biersack, Press Officer, 
Telephone: (202) 694-1220.
    Individuals who plan to attend and require special assistance, such 
as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, 
should contact Mary Dove, Commission Secretary, at (202) 694-1040, at 
least 72 hours prior to the hearing date.

Mary W. Dove,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 08-226 Filed 1-16-08; 2:36 pm]
BILLING CODE 6715-01-M
#### Brenda Kay Ford *v.*Ruth Schrader And Carl Schrader

(No. 15045)

Decided March 31, 1981.

*Richardson & Richardson and William B. Richardson*for appellants.

*Marvin A. Goldstein*for appellee.

Per Curiam:

On July 15, 1980, the appellee in this proceeding, Brenda Kay Ford, filed a habeas corpus petition in the Circuit Court of Wood County praying that the appellants, Ruth and Carl Schrader, be required to return to her actual custody of her six-year old son. Although the Schraders filed an answer challenging Mrs. Ford’s right to custody, the trial court, without conducting a hearing, summarily issued the writ and ordered that the Schraders return the child to Mrs. Ford. In this appeal the Schraders claim that *629the trial court erred in summarily issuing the writ and in denying them the opportunity to be heard on the issues in the case. We agree; we reverse the order of the circuit court; and we remand the case with directions that the court afford the Schraders an opportunity to be heard.

In the petition instituting this proceeding, Mrs. Ford alleged that she was awarded legal custody of her infant son in a divorce decree entered by the Circuit Court of Wood County on November 8, 1979. She further alleged that after entry of the decree she left her son with Mrs. Schrader, who had begged that she be allowed to visit with the child.

In response to Mrs. Ford’s petition that they be required to return the child, the Schraders filed an answer in which they asserted that Mrs. Ford had abandoned the child in 1976, that she was an unfit mother and that they had had actual custody of the boy since 1976.

We do not address the merits of the suit since the only issue before us is whether the trial court erred in entering an order granting custody to the mother based solely on her petition and the answer of the Schraders. In *State ex rel. Neider v. Reuff,*29 W.Va. 751, 2 S.E. 801 (1887), we reversed a habeas corpus order which was based “on the petition and return alone.” *Id.*at 763, 2 S.E. at 807.

We noted that our habeas corpus statute, the counterpart to our present *W.Va. Code,*53-4-7, requires the judge “to hear the ‘matter both upon the return and any other evidence.’ ” In *Neider*we indicated that judgment based on the pleadings in a habeas corpus proceeding should not be done unless “the condition of the pleadings will permit the same to be done without injury to the opposite party ....” *Id.*at 764, 2 S.E. at 807.

In the present case, the factual issues presented by the respondents’ answer were such that the court should not have summarily entered judgment without a further hearing. *See, Whiteman v. Robinson,*145 W.Va. 685, 116 S.E.2d 691 (1960).

*630For this reason the judgment of the Circuit Court of Wood County is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings.

*Reversed and remanded.*
Presidential Documents

36403 

Federal Register 

Vol. 73, No. 124 

Thursday, June 26, 2008 

Title 3— 

The President 

Presidential Determination No. 2008–21 of June 20, 2008 

Waiving the Prohibition on the Use of Economic Support 

Funds With Respect to Various Parties to the Rome Statute 

Establishing the International Criminal Court 

Memorandum for the Secretary of State 

Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws 

of the United States, including section 574 of the Foreign Operations, Export 

Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2006 (Public Law 109– 

102), as carried forward by the Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2007 (Public Law 110–5), I hereby: 

• Determine that it is important to the national interests of the United 

States to waive the prohibition of aforementioned section 574(a) with respect 

to Bolivia, Costa Rica, Cyprus, Ecuador, Kenya, Mali, Mexico, Namibia, 

Niger, Paraguay, Peru, Samoa, South Africa, and Tanzania; and 

• Waive the prohibition of aforementioned section 574(a) with respect to 

these countries. 

You are authorized and directed to report this determination to the Congress 

and to arrange for its publication in the Federal Register. 

THE WHITE HOUSE, 

Washington, June 20, 2008. 

[FR Doc. 08–1393 

Filed 6–25–08; 9:43 am] 

Billing code 4710–10–P 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES5GWBOLD.EPS</GPH>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 22-0305

JAMES JOSEPH MAIN, JR.,

Petitioner and Appellant,

v.

STATE OF MONTANA,

Respondent and Appellee.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time and 

good cause appearing.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Appellant is given an 

extension of time until May 31, 2024, to prepare, file, and serve the 

Appellant’s reply brief.

No further extensions will be granted.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 6 2024

05/06/2024

Case Number: DA 22-0305
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5771 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5771

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow the deduction for 
        charitable contributions as an above-the-line deduction.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 10, 2018

 Mr. Smith of New Jersey (for himself and Mr. Cuellar) 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 allow the deduction for 
        charitable contributions as an above-the-line deduction.

    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 ``Charitable Giving Tax Deduction 
Act''.

SEC. 2. DEDUCTION FOR CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS ALLOWED IN DETERMINING 
              ADJUSTED GROSS INCOME.

    (a) In General.--Section 62(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
is amended by inserting after paragraph (7) the following new 
paragraph:
            ``(8) Charitable contributions.--The deduction allowed 
        under section 170.''.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 170(b)(1)(H) of such Code is 
amended by striking ``(computed without regard to any net operating 
loss carryback to the taxable year under section 172).'' and inserting 
the following: ``determined without regard to--
                            ``(i) section 62(a)(8), and
                            ``(ii) any net operating loss carryback to 
                        the taxable year under section 172.''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017.
                                 <all>
```
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 20

- 00066

- CR

E X PARTE A NTHONY P RESCOTT §

§

§

§

§ On Appeal from the 211th District Court

of Denton County ( F1 5

- 1942

- 211

- WHC1)

April 23 , 2020

Opinion by Justice Womack

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that the

appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed for want of

jurisdictio n

.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF A PPEALS

By /s/ Dana Womack

Justice Dana Womack
| **Summary of Significant Accounting Policies Litigation policy (Policies)** | 12 Months Ended                                                                                                                                                                                                                         |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
||
| **Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]**                     |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    |
| Litigation policy [Text Block]                                              | Litigation: The Company accrues a liability for costs related to litigation, including future legal costs, settlements and judgments where it has assessed that such costs are probable and an amount can be reasonably estimated. |

| X                                                                                                                                                                                                                               |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Definition
Litigation policy.
+ References
No definition available.
+ Details**Name:**stj_LitigationPolicyTextBlock**Namespace Prefix:**stj_**Data Type:**nonnum:textBlockItemType**Balance Type:**na**Period Type:**duration |
| X                                                                                                                                                                                 |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Details**Name:**us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract**Namespace Prefix:**us-gaap_**Data Type:**xbrli:stringItemType**Balance Type:**na**Period Type:**duration |
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-20372 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus RICARDO FONTES, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-99-CR-692-1

-------------------- December 14, 2000 Before DAVIS, STEWART, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The federal public defender appointed to represent Ricardo Fontes on appeal of his drug-trafficking convictions has moved for leave to withdraw by filing a motion and brief as required by Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). In response to the Anders motion, Fontes moved for appointment of substitute counsel due to the following “constitutional harm[s]”: (1) he did not understand the language of the interpreter and all the questions at the court proceedings; (2) because he misunderstood the question “How do you feel?,” he expressed that he was not inNo. 00-20372 -2- pain, although he suffers from tuberculosis and arthritis; and (3) he received ineffective legal assistance because his counsel failed to challenge, or advise him that he could challenge, the drug-quantity determination. The record has not been adequatelydeveloped for us to consider Fontes’ ineffective-assistance-ofcounsel argument on direct appeal. See United States v. Haese , 162 F.3d 359, 363-64 (5th Cir. 1998), cert. denied , 526 U.S. 1138 (1999). Fontes has failed to establish incompatibility with his counsel or other most pressing circumstances sufficient to warrant a substitution of counsel. See Fifth Circuit Plan under the CJA, § 3; United States v. Trevino , 992 F.2d 64, 65 (5th Cir. 1993). Furthermore, our independent review of the motion, brief, and record discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, the appeal is DISMISSED, Fontes’ motion for appointment of substitute counsel is DENIED, and Fontes’ motion for extension of time is
DENIED. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.
Letter of Addendum and Amendment to


First Letter of Addendum and First Amendment to

August 6, 2014 Purchase, Sale and Joint Exploration Agreement

By and Between Rangeford Resources, Inc. and Black Gold Kansas Production, LLC




Dated:  August 6, 2014




Whereas, Rangeford Resources, Inc. (“RGFR”) and Black Gold Kansas Production, LLC (“BGKP”) are party to a Purchase, Sale and Joint Exploration Agreement, executed on August 6, 2014, (the “PSA”), to purchase certain BGKP assets in Wyoming for consideration of $2,352,000; 

Whereas, RGFR is trying to raise the capital necessary to consummate the actions contemplated by the PSA; and 

Whereas, during the time between the execution of the PSA and the time funding will occur, certain new invoices and liabilities have arisen that affect the total consideration; 

Whereas, RGFR and BGKP wish to amend the provisions of the PSA’s to  clarify;

Now therefore, in consideration for the mutual consideration set forth herein, the parties do hereby agree to amend the PSA as follows: 

I.

Amendment to Purchase and Sale

Section 12.8, of the PSA shall be added and incorporated in its entirety as follows:

This PSA shall not be interdependent with or upon the Joint Exploration Agreement referenced and included as an addendum to the PSA, and no default under the Joint Exploration Agreement shall in any way affect this Agreement or the validity of this purchase and sale.




II.

Additional Provisions

1.

Except as expressly set forth herein, no terms of the Purchase Sale and Exploration Agreement or any ancillary agreements have been changed, altered or amended and all such agreements shall remain in full force and effect in accordance with their respective terms.

2.

This document may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original instrument, but all such counterparts together shall constitute one agreement.

Signature Page Follows




Accepted and Agreed to by: 












1







Rangeford Resources, Inc.










By:  /s/ Colin C. Richardson 

Colin C. Richardson

President

Date:  August 6, 2014










And,










Black Gold Kansas Production, LLC 




By: _____________________________________________________ 

Stephen Nadeau

Managing Member

Date:  June ___, 2014







 






2
EXHIBIT 32.1  Section 1350 Certification  I, Ronald Mumford, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Pacific Edge Publishing, Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Pacific Edge Publishing, Inc.  May 13, 2008 By: /s/ Ronald Mumford  Ronald Mumford, President  Principal Executive Officer,  Director   A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Pacific Edge Publishing, Inc. and will be retained by Pacific Edge Publishing, Inc. and furnished to the United States Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.