alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### STATE v. BRYANT STONE.

(Filed 17 May, 1933.)

1. Homicide G a—

Testimony tending to show that defendant shot and killed deceased, together with testimony of the dying declaration of the deceased identifying defendant as his assailant, and other evidence of identity, motive, etc., is held sufficient to have been submitted to the jury, and their verdict of guilty of first degree murder is upheld. «•

3. Criminal Law L d—

Where defendant does not object to the admission of certain evidence upon the trial he may not complain for the first time in the Supreme Court on appeal, and *held further*the evidence complained of was favorable to defendant.

Appeal by defendant from *Cowper, Special Judge,*at August Term, 1932, of Wilkes.

Criminal prosecution tried upon indictment charging the prisoner with the murder of one Wayne Norman.

Verdict: Guilty of murder in the first degree (as shown by return to writ of *certiorari).*

Judgment: Death by electrocution.

Defendant appeals, assigning errors.

*Attorney-General Brummitt and Assistant Attorney-General Seawell for the Slate.*

*J. H. Whicker for defendant.*

*667Stacy, 0. J.

The evidence on behalf of the State — there was none offered by the defendant — tends to show that on Sunday, 12 June, 1932, about the half hour of noon, the prisoner fired a shotgun through a crack in the smoke-house and mortally wounded his son-in-law who was sitting on the front porch of his dwelling-house. The deceased was carried to the hospital and died the next day. In a dying declaration he told his wife that Bryant Stone shot him. There was other evidence of identity, as well as of motive, including threats, tending to establish the guilt of the defendant. In no view of the case could the demurrer to the evidence have been sustained.

Dr. E. C. Hubbard, who attended the deceased in his last illness, was allowed to testify: “He told me he was sitting on the porch when he was shot. He didn’t know who shot him. Said he believed Stone shot him.” This evidence might well have been excluded. *S. v. Beal,*199 N. C., 278, 154 S. E., 604. But as it was not objected to at the time, the defendant is in no position to complain for the first time in this Court. Furthermore, it was favorable to the defendant.

The record is free from reversible error. The verdict and judgment will be upheld.

No error.
DISMISS and Opinion Filed April 19, 2023 

# S

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-22-01034-CV PETER O. ONYEBUCHI, Appellant V. JACKSON EHIOGUH AND MUST APHA YUSUF, Appellees On Appeal from the 134th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-18-10931 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Nowell, Goldstein, and Breedlove Opinion by Justice Nowell Appellant’s brief in this case is overdue . After appellant failed to respond to our inquiry regarding the reporter’s record , we ordered the appeal submitted without a reporter’s record and for appellant’s brief to be filed by February 8, 2023. We later extended the time for appellant’s brief until March 10, 2023. By postcard dated March 15, 2023 we informed a ppellant his brief was over due and directed him to file his brief within ten days. We cautione d appellant that failure to do so would result in the dismissal of this appeal without further notice. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P.–2– 38.8(a)(1). To date, appellant has not filed his brief or otherwise corresponded with the Court regarding the status of this appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.8 (a)(1); 42.3(b), (c).

221034F.P05 /Erin A. Nowell / ERIN A. NOWELL JUSTICE–3– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT PETER O. ONYEBUCHI, Appellant
No. 05-22-01034-CV V.
JACKSON EHIOGUH and MUSTAPH YUSUF, Appellees On Appeal from the 134th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-18-10931. Opinion delivered by Justice Nowell. Justices Goldstein and Breedlove participating. In accordance with this Court’s opini on of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED

. Judgment entered this 19th day of April 2023.
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 NASB Financial, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2005, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Rhonda Nyhus, 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:

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 result of operations of
the Company.


May 13, 2005                By:  /s/ Rhonda Nyhus
                                 Rhonda Nyhus
                                 Vice President and Treasurer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to NASB Financial, Inc. and will be retained by NASB
Financial, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.



This certification is made solely for purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, subject to the knowledge standard contained therein , and not for
any other purpose.

<Page>
Long-Range 

Actuarial 

Balance

Annual 

Balance in 

75th Year

Long-Range 

Actuarial 

Balance

Annual Balance 

in 75th Year

Long-Range 

Actuarial 

Balance

B

7

-1.70% -4.20% 0.56% 1.18% -1.14% 

Estimates based on the intermediate assumptions of the 2008 Trustees Report Office of the Chief A

November 13, 2008

Summary Measures and Graphs

Category of Change: Retirement Age

Proposed Provision: Shorten the hiatus in the NRA by 5 years, that is, start increasing the Nfor individuals age 62 in 2012, rather than in 2017. Beginning for those age 62 in 2012, incand NRA for retired worker benefits by 2 months per year until the EEA reaches age 63 anreaches age 67 for those attaining age 62 in 2017. Thereafter, increase both EEA and NRA every 2 years. Finally, increase the earliest eligibility age for disabled widow(er)s and aged same rate as the increase in the EEA for retired worker benefits.

Present Law Change From Present Law in Results with this 

OASDI Cost Rates and Income Rates

(as a percentage of taxable payroll)

0.02.04.06.08.0

10.012.014.016.018.020.0

2008 2018 2028 2038 2048 2058 2068 2078

Year

Percent

Cost rates with this provisionCost rates under present lawIncome rates with this provisionIncome rates under present law

OASDI Trust Fund Ratio

 (assets as a percentage of annual expe

0

100200300400500600700800900

1000

2008 2018 2028 2038 2048 2058 

Year

Percent

Present law With this p
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 9, 2022

No. 04

- 22

- 00376

- CR

Jose Andres ROMERO

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 216th Judicial District Court

, Gillespie County, Texas

Trial Court No. 7291

Honorable Albert D. P attillo, III , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

On June 29, 2022, the court reporter filed a notification of late record, stating that the reporter’s record has not been filed because appellant has failed to request the record in writing.

We therefore ORDER appellant to provide written proof to this court by August 19, 2022 that the appellant has requested the court reporter to prepare the reporter’s re cord, which request must designate the portions of the proceedings and the exhibits to be included. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 34.6(b)(1). The reporter’s record must be filed no later than thirty days after the date appellant’s written proof is filed with this co urt. If appellant fails to request the record in writing, the court will consider only those issues or points raised in appellant’s brief that do not require a reporter’s

record for a decision. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 37.3(c).

_________________________________ Beth Watkins , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand a nd affixed the seal of the said

court on this 9th day of August, 2022

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Project No. 13629-002]

                    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) regulations, 18 CFR part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897), the Office of Energy Projects has reviewed the application for an original license to construct the Coleman Hydroelectric Project, located                           ( print page 6854)                        on Little Timber Creek near the Town of Leadore, in Lemhi County, Idaho, and has prepared a final Environmental Assessment (EA) for the project. The project would not occupy any federal lands.                

The final EA includes staff's analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the project and concludes that licensing the project, with appropriate environmental protective measures, would not constitute a major federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the human environment.

                    A copy of the final EA is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at                     *www.ferc.gov*                     using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at                     *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov,*                     or toll-free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY, (202) 502-8659.                

                    You may also register online at                     *www.ferc.gov/​docs-filing/​esubscription.asp*                     to be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.                

For further information, contact Jim Hastreiter at (503) 552-2760.

Dated: February 3, 2016.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2016-02506 Filed 2-8-16; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
#### Michael Parisi, Appellant, v Loewen Development of Wappinger Falls, LP, Defendant, and Howard Loewentheil, Inc., Respondent. (And a Third-Party Action.)

[774 NYS2d 747]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nicolai, J.), entered November 27, 2002, which granted the motion of the defendant Howard Loewentheil, Inc., for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff injured his left hand while disassembling a crane at a construction site where the defendant Howard Loewentheil, Inc. (hereinafter Loewentheil), was the general contractor. The plaintiff commenced this action against several parties, including Loewentheil, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6). Thereafter, Loewentheil moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

The Supreme Court correctly granted Loewentheil’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s Labor Law § 200 claim insofar as asserted against it. “To establish liability against an owner or general contractor pursuant to Labor Law § 200, it must be established that the owner or general contractor exercised supervision and control over the work performed at the site, or had actual or constructive notice of the allegedly unsafe condition” *(Dennis v City of New York,*304 AD2d 611, 612 [2003]; *see Lara v Saint John’s Univ.,*289 AD2d 457 [2001]; *Cuartas v Kourkoumelis,*265 AD2d 293, 294 [1999]). Additionally, for liability to be imposed, the owner or general contractor must have directed and controlled the manner in which the work was performed, not merely possessed general supervisory authority *(see Dennis v City of New York, supra; Cuartas v Kourkoumelis, supra).*As to the plaintiff’s Labor Law § 200 claim, Loewentheil established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating it had neither direct control and supervision over the disassembling of the crane, nor notice of the alleged dangerous condition. In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

The Supreme Court also correctly granted Loewentheil’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s Labor *649Law § 241 (6) claim insofar as asserted against it. To prevail under Labor Law § 241 (6), a plaintiff must establish the violation of an Industrial Code provision which sets forth a specific standard of conduct *(see Ross v Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co.,*81 NY2d 494, 501-505 [1993]; *Akins v Baker,*247 AD2d 562 [1998]; *Vernieri v Empire Realty Co.,*219 AD2d 593, 597 [1995]). Loewentheil established its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment as a matter of law dismissing the plaintiff s Labor Law § 241 (6) claim insofar as asserted against it by demonstrating that the Industrial Code provision on which the claim was premised was inapplicable to the facts of this case. In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. S. Miller, J.P., Luciano, Adams and Townes, JJ., concur.
| Skip to contentSocial Security Online | Actuarial Publications |
|---------------------------------------|------------------------|

| www.socialsecurity.gov | Home  FAQs  Contact Us  Search | **Search**  |
|------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------|------------------|

| Solvency provisions | Detailed Single Year Tables |
|---------------------|-----------------------------|

| Payroll Tax Rates | Description of Proposed Provision:      Beginning in 2009, reduce the combined OASDI payroll tax rate from 12.4 percent to 11.4 percent. |
|-------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                   |

       Financial Estimates for the OASDI Trust Fund Program                Percentage of taxable payroll           Trust fundratio as ofJanuary 1CalendaryearCostrateIncomerateAnnualbalance 200811.2012.771.57 359200911.2611.810.54 369201011.3711.820.46 370201111.5311.840.31 370201211.7611.870.10 367201312.0311.90-0.13 362201412.3211.92-0.40 355201512.6211.94-0.68 346201612.9311.96-0.96 336201713.2411.99-1.26 324201813.5412.01-1.53 311201913.8412.03-1.81 297202014.1412.04-2.09 281202114.4212.06-2.36 265202214.6912.08-2.61 248202314.9512.10-2.85 230202415.2012.11-3.09 211202515.4412.13-3.31 191202615.6612.14-3.51 170202715.8712.16-3.71 148202816.0712.17-3.90 125202916.2512.18-4.07 102203016.4112.19-4.22 78203116.5412.20-4.34 53203216.6612.21-4.45 28203316.7512.22-4.53 2203416.8012.22-4.58 ----203516.8412.23-4.62 ----203616.8712.23-4.64 ----203716.8812.23-4.65 ----203816.8812.24-4.64 ----203916.8512.24-4.62 ----204016.8212.23-4.58 ----204116.7812.23-4.54 ----204216.7412.23-4.51 ----204316.7012.23-4.47 ----204416.6612.23-4.43 ----204516.6212.23-4.40 ----204616.6012.23-4.37 ----204716.5712.23-4.34 ----204816.5512.23-4.32 ----204916.5312.23-4.31 ----205016.5212.23-4.30 ----205116.5212.23-4.29 ----205216.5312.23-4.30 ----205316.5412.23-4.30 ----205416.5512.23-4.32 ----205516.5712.23-4.33 ----205616.5912.24-4.36 ----205716.6212.24-4.38 ----205816.6412.24-4.40 ----205916.6712.24-4.42 ----206016.6912.24-4.45 ----206116.7212.25-4.47 ----206216.7412.25-4.49 ----206316.7712.25-4.52 ----206416.7912.25-4.54 ----206516.8212.25-4.57 ----206616.8612.26-4.60 ----206716.8912.26-4.63 ----206816.9212.26-4.66 ----206916.9512.26-4.69 ----207016.9912.26-4.72 ----207117.0312.27-4.76 ----207217.0712.27-4.80 ----207317.1112.27-4.83 ----207417.1512.27-4.87 ----207517.1912.28-4.91 ----207617.2312.28-4.95 ----207717.2712.28-4.99 ----207817.3212.28-5.03 ----207917.3612.29-5.07 ----208017.4112.29-5.12 ----208117.4512.29-5.16 ----208217.5012.29-5.21 ----208317.5512.30-5.25 ----208417.5912.30-5.29 ----208517.6412.30-5.33 ----Summarized RatesYearsCostrateIncomerateActuarialbalance         Change inactuarialbalance Estimates based on the Intermediate Assumptions                         of the 2008 Trustees Report2008-208215.64%12.96%-2.68%-0.98% Privacy Policy      | Website Policies        & Other Important Information      | Site Map     Last reviewed or modified August 11, 2008
Exhibit 10.13


 


FIRST AMENDMENT TO


TEMPO AUTOMATION, INC. 


AMENDED AND RESTATED 2015 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN


 


THIS FIRST AMENDMENT
(this “Amendment”) to the Tempo Automation, Inc. Amended and Restated 2015 Equity Incentive Plan is
made and adopted by the Board of Directors (the “Board”)
of Tempo Automation, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), effective as of September 29, 2022
(the “Effective Date”). All capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined herein shall have the
respective meanings ascribed to such terms in the Plan (as defined below).


 


RECITALS


 


WHEREAS, the Company maintains
the Tempo Automation, Inc. Amended and Restated 2015 Equity Incentive Plan (the “Plan”);


 


WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 14
of the Plan, the Board has the authority to amend the Plan from time to time, including to increase the maximum aggregate number of shares
of Common Stock available for issuance thereunder, subject to approval of the Company’s stockholders within twelve (12) months thereof;
and


 


WHEREAS, the Board believes
it is in the best interests of the Company and its stockholders to amend the Plan as set forth herein.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,
that the Plan is hereby amended as follows, effective as of the Effective Date, subject to approval of this Amendment by the Company’s
stockholders:


 


AMENDMENT


 


		1.	The first sentence of Section 3 of the Plan is hereby deleted and replaced in its entirety with the
following:



 


“Subject to the provisions of
Section 11 below, the maximum aggregate number of Shares that may be issued under the Plan is 27,712,681 Shares, all
of which Shares may be issued under the Plan pursuant to Incentive Stock Options.”


 


		2.	This Amendment shall be and is hereby incorporated into and forms a part of the Plan.



 


		3.	Except as expressly provided herein, all terms and conditions of the Plan shall remain in full force and
effect.



 


[Signature page follows]


 






    



     


    

 


*          *         *


 


I
hereby certify that the foregoing Amendment was duly adopted by the Board of Directors of Tempo Automation, Inc. on ________________,
2022.


 


Executed
on this _____ day of _________, 2022.


 


	 	By:	 
	 	 	Name:	 
	 	 	Title:	 




 


*          *          *


 


I
hereby certify that the foregoing Amendment was approved by the stockholders of Tempo Automation, Inc. on ________________, 2022.


 


Executed on this _____ day of _________, 2022.


 


	 	By:	 
	 	 	Name:	 
	 	 	Title:
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3873 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3873

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To designate the outdoor amphitheater at the Blue Ridge Music Center in 
         Galax, Virginia, as the ``Rick Boucher Amphitheater''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF THE RICK BOUCHER AMPHITHEATER.

    (a) Designation.--The outdoor amphitheater at the Blue Ridge Music 
Center, located at 700 Foothills Road, Galax, Virginia, a facility 
within the Blue Ridge Parkway, which is a unit of the National Park 
System, shall be known and designated as the ``Rick Boucher 
Amphitheater''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the outdoor amphitheater 
referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the 
``Rick Boucher Amphitheater''.

            Passed the Senate December 22, 2022.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
117th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 3873

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To designate the outdoor amphitheater at the Blue Ridge Music Center in 
         Galax, Virginia, as the ``Rick Boucher Amphitheater''.
```
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida 

Opinion filed September 8, 2021.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D21-1248

Lower Tribunal No. 17-17252

________________

G4S Secure Solutions (USA), Inc., etc.,

Petitioner,

vs.

N.L. and Publix Super Markets, Inc.,

Respondents.

On Petition for Writ of Certiorari from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade 

County, Valerie R. Manno Schurr, Judge.

Conrad & Scherer LLP, and Irwin R. Gilbert and Janine McGuire (Fort 

Lauderdale), for petitioner.

Silva & Silva, P.A., and Carlos Silva and Paul Layne; Burlington & 

Rockenbach, P.A., and Philip M. Burlington and Nichole J. Segal (West Palm 

Beach), for respondent N.L.; Weiss Serota Helfman Cole & Bierman, P.L., 

and Edward G. Guedes and Laura K. Wendell, for respondent Publix Super 

Markets, Inc.

Before LOGUE, SCALES, and LOBREE, JJ.
2

LOGUE, J. 

In light of the fact that the trial court denied the Petitioner’s motion to 

compel without prejudice, suggested a resolution involving an in-camera

review by the court, and indicated it was open to review the issue closer to 

trial (and the trial date has not yet been set), we dismiss the petition seeking 

certiorari review for lack of jurisdiction because the Petitioner has not shown 

that the order under review creates irreparable harm. “The establishment of 

irreparable harm is a condition precedent to invoking certiorari jurisdiction.” 

Stockinger v. Zeilberger, 152 So. 3d 71, 73 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (“Seasoned 

and respected trial judges, like the trial judge in this case, can be trusted to 

manage this type of common discovery dispute. The trial judge has done it 

before, and will undoubtedly do it faster, cheaper, and fairer without our 

interference. It is premature for an appellate court to intervene.”). 

Dismissed.