alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.47.2


 





 


	
   

  	
   

  	
  ADDRESS REPLY TO

  
	
  MUHTAR KENT

  	
   

  	
  P.O. BOX
  1734

  
	
  PRESIDENT AND
  CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER  

  THE COCA-COLA
  COMPANY

  	
   

  	
  ATLANTA,
  GEORIGIA  30301

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  404 676-4082

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  FAX:  404
  676-7721

  



 


December 15, 2008


 


Mr. Joseph
Tripodi


Atlanta,
Georgia


 


Dear
Joe:


 


This
letter revises the relocation provisions set forth on page 3 of the letter
provided to you on July 20, 2007.  
In order to complete your relocation to Atlanta, the Company will
provide additional support for your move. 
Specifically, the Company will reimburse you for the loss on the sale of
your primary residence, up to an actual loss incurred of up to $900,000, plus duplicative
living expenses incurred.  You will also
be reimbursed for taxes on this payment.  However, the total amount reimbursed will be
reduced by the full $500,000 amount of the cash hiring bonus referenced on page 2
of your July 20, 2007 letter.   In addition, you will not be eligible for the
balance remaining ($200,000) of the $300,000 for extraordinary expenses
referenced in your July 20, 2007 letter.


 


Should you voluntarily
resign your employment with the Company or be terminated by the Company as a
result of a violation of the Company’s Code of Business Conduct or any other
policy of the Company or gross misconduct within 24 months of the date of the
payment, you will be required to reimburse the Company the entire amount of the
payment.


 


	
  Regards,

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  /s/ Muhtar Kent

  	
   

  



 


 


cc:  Ginny Sutton, Executive Compensation
Electronically Filed 

Supreme Court 

SCPR-18-0000891 

30-NOV-2018 

09:58 AM 

SCPR-18-0000891
 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I
 

IN RE NELSON T. NAGAUE, Petitioner.
 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
 

ORDER GRANTING PETITION TO RESIGN AND SURRENDER LICENSE
 

(By Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson JJ.)
 

Upon consideration of the petition to resign and 

surrender his license to practice law in the State of Hawai'i 

filed by attorney Nelson T. Nagaue, pursuant to Rule 1.10 of the 

Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai'i (RSCH), and 

the affidavits submitted in support thereof, we conclude 

Petitioner Nagaue has complied with the requirements of RSCH 

Rule 1.10. Therefore, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition is granted and
 

Petitioner Nagaue’s resignation in good standing is accepted,
 

effective December 31, 2018. 


IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to RSCH Rule 1.10(g),
 

that the Petitioner shall comply with the notice, affidavit, and
 

record requirements of RSCH Rules 2.16(a), (b), (d), and (g).
 
IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that the Clerk shall remove the 

name of Petitioner Nelson T. Nagaue, attorney number 1335, from 

the roll of attorneys of the State of Hawai'i, as of December 31, 

2018. 

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, November 30, 2018. 

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald 

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama 

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna 

/s/ Richard W. Pollack 

/s/ Michael D. Wilson 

2
,Hon.Paul Brashear, Chairman

Military & VeteranetAffairs Committee House ofRepresentatives Capitol Station Austin, Texas OpinionNO. w-85 Re: Whether H.B. 416 would affect bonds approved by theAttorney General under Trust Indenture ofApril 1, 1953. Dear Mr. Brashear:

We quote from your letter datedMarch 20, 1957, wherein this opinion Fs requested:

'RecentlyI requested informationregarding the effect of H.B. 416, revising the method of appointment of theArmory Board of Texas. The requested opinion was whether this proposed change would affect the sale of bonds by theArmory Board. You . . .granted this opinion and replied in the negative. * (See Attorney General OplnionWW-62). "Thequestion has arisen as to whether this same bill would affect bonds approvedby the Attorney General's officeunder trust indenture datedApril 1, 1953, some of which have been sold and the balance will be delivered in June and September of this year. * * *
*(Parenthetical expression Ours)
As you observe, the effect ofH.B. 416 is to revise the method of appointment of the members of the Texas Nation81 GuardArmory Board and to substitute certain namedHon. Paul Brashear, page 2 (~~-85)

officers for other officersnow serving.

The question is whether these proposed changes affect bonds heretoforeapproved by this office,but not sold or delivered.

A continuing trust indenturedatedApril 1, 1.953, established the reciprocaland correspondingrighta and duties of the parties to past bond issues 88 well as Suture ones. Article One (1) of the indenturegives the meaning of words and phrasesused in the instrumentand the intent of the parties as to the meaning of their usage therein. Article 1.01(a), Trust Indenture,provides:

"Board" - The Texas National Guard Armory Board, the first party hereto, and a2 other public b&y at a3 time succeeding to the property - - -- rights and ObliR8tlonS Izf the Texas NatioAalGuard~mory Board. (Emphasis or The board created InH.B. 416 I& a public body designated by the Legislature as the Texas NationalGuard Armory Board and qualifies under Section 1.01(a), supra, and, therefore,would not affect bonds approved or to be considered for approval by this officeunder said indenture or supplement thereto.

You refer to certainbonds to be delivered in June and September of this year. As to these, you are respectfully advised that until 8CtUal delivery to purchaser, they have not been issued and, consequently,Attorney Gener8l'S OpinionWW-62 to you on March 18, 195'i, holding that H.B. 416 would not affect the power of the Board to issuebonds, would be applicable.
SUMMARY

H.B. 416 would not affect bonds approved by theAttorney Gener81'~ office underHon. Paul Brashear, page 3 (~~-85)

trust indenturedatedApril 1, 1953, some of which have been sold and the balance due for delivery in June and September, 1957.

Very truly yours,
WILL WILSON Attornes General

GW-s APPROVED: OPINION COMMITTEE H. Grady Chandler, Chairman Byron Fullerton Milton Richardson Wayland C. Rivers, Jr. BY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

CASE NO: 09-20006-10

vs.

DISTRICT JUDGE THOMAS L. LUDINGTON

DAWN SANTOVIZ MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES E. BINDER

a/k/a Dawn Schwerin

/

ORDER MODIFYING CONDITIONS OF RELEASE

An Order Setting Conditions of Release was entered on December 16, 2008, as to this

Defendant. Pretrial Services has reported to this judicial officer that there are concerns with

the Defendant’s compliance with some of those conditions. After a meeting between Pretrial

Services, defense counsel and the Defendant, the parties have agreed to a modification of

the bond that would place the Defendant on a tether. With the Defendant’s agreement to be

detained until the tether can be put in place, the government will not make a formal motion for

detention. Having heard from all parties concerning this issue, IT IS ORDERED that the

Defendant’s bond conditions are modified to include the requirement that she be place on a

tether. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Defendant shall not be released until the tether

has been put in place, and all other physical requirements for the tether to operate are put in

place. When they receive notice that everything is in place, the U.S. Marshal’s Service is

authorized to release Defendant Santoviz. 

Review of this Order is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and E.D. Mich. LR

72.1(d)(1). Pursuant to Local Rule 72.1(d)(2), a copy of any objections is to be served upon

this Magistrate Judge. 

 s/ Charles` E Binder 

CHARLES E. BINDER 

Dated: January 22, 2009 United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:09-cr-20006-TLL-CEB ECF No. 48, PageID.73 Filed 01/22/09 Page 1 of 2
CERTIFICATION

I hereby certify that this Order was electronically filed this date, electronically served

on Craig Wininger, Shane Waller and Shawn Sutton, and served on Pretrial Services and the

U.S. Marshal’s Service by other electronic means.

Date: January 22, 2009 By s/Jean L. Broucek 

Case Manager to Magistrate Judge Binder

Case 1:09-cr-20006-TLL-CEB ECF No. 48, PageID.74 Filed 01/22/09 Page 2 of 2
#### The ATCHISON, TOPEKA AND SANTA FE RAILWAY CO., Petitioner, v. Candido H. SANCHEZ, Respondent.

No. D-4516.

Supreme Court of Texas.

March 30, 1994.

J. Hadley Edgar, D. Thomas Johnson, Brian P. Quinn, Lubbock, for petitioner.

Aubrey L. Koberts, Sweetwater, Bob Hanna, Abilene, for respondent.

PEE CURIAM.

While an employee of the Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe Rahway Company (Santa Fe), Candido H. Sanchez was seriously injured in Dallas County. Sanchez was a resident of Coleman County and Santa Fe is a foreign corporation with its principal office in Topeka, Kansas. Sanchez sued Santa Fe in Nolan County. Sanchez asserted venue under section 15.037 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code alleging that Santa Fe had an agency or representative in Nolan County. Santa Fe filed a motion to transfer the ease to Dallas County which the trial court overruled. After a jury trial, the trial court rendered judgment for Sanchez. Relying upon this court’s prior opinion in *Ruiz v. Conoco, Inc.,*36 Tex.Sup.Ct.J. 412 (Dec. 31, 1992), the court of appeals affirmed. 861 S.W.2d 77.

The court of appeals issued its opinion in this cause on August 26, 1993. Santa Fe filed its motion for rehearing on September 13, 1993. This court issued its new opinion in *Ruiz v. Conoco, Inc.,*868 S.W.2d 752 (Tex.1993) on September 29, 1993. The court of appeals overruled Santa Fe’s motion for rehearing on September 30, 1993. Apparently, the court of appeals never had the opportunity to consider this cause in light of this court’s new opinion in *Ruiz v. Conoco, Inc.*

Without addressing the merits, pursuant to Rule 170 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, a majority of the court grants Santa Fe’s application for writ of error and, without hearing oral argument, reverses the judgment of the court of appeals and remands this cause to the court of appeals for further proceedings.
#### Maurice KISO and David Forrest and Maple Park Real Estate Co., Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. Warren R. SAUER, et al., Defendants/Respondents, George and Violet Hennen, Defendants/Respondents.

No. 65475.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.

Aug. 15, 1995.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Sept. 25, 1995.

Application to Transfer Denied Nov. 21, 1995.

*747Richard E. Coughlin, Clayton, for Maurice Kiso.

Christopher L. Kanzler, St. Louis, for Sauer, Korn, Knoeller, James, Welsh, Boullier, Faron and Webb.

James E. Dearing, Clayton, for Hennen.

Before AHRENS, P.J., and SIMON and KAROHL, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiffs, Maurice Kiso and David Forrest, in their capacities as trustees of the Maple Park Real Estate Company Employees’ Profit Sharing Retirement Plan and Maple Park Development Corporation, appeal from a judgment in favor of defendants, Warren Sauer, et al., the lot owners of the Spring Hill subdivision, finding that plaintiffs’ property was not landlocked and a private road, under § 228.342 R.S.Mo.1994, could not be constructed through defendants’ common ground.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. A memorandum, solely for the use of the parties involved, has been provided explaining the reasons for our holding.
## NO. 12-09-00229-CV IN THE COUR T OF APP EALS TWELFTH COURT OF APP EALS D ISTR ICT

TYLER, TEXA S

§ IN RE: JIMMY RA Y RIGSBY, RELATOR § ORIGINAL PROCEE DING § MEMORA NDUM OPIN ION Re lator , J imm y Ray Rigs by , see ks a writ o f m a nd a mus a gains t Re sp on de nt, theHo no ra ble Reba D. Squyre s, District Clerk of Ange lina County, Texas, direc ting her to file his petition for expunction of r ecor ds pursuant to Texa s Code of Criminal Procedure , article 55.01. We de ny the

writ. The district c lerk has a minist eria l duty to acc ept and f ile all pleadings pre sented for filing. In re Sim monds , 2 71 S.W .3 d 87 4, 87 9 (T e x. Ap p. –W a c o 2 00 8, orig. pr oc e e din g) ; In r e Be rna rd , 993 S.W.2d 453, 454 (Tex. A pp.–Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, ori g . p ro cee ding) (O’ Connor, J.,

concur ring). But a court of a

ppeals ha s no authority to issue writs of mandamus against a district cler k exce pt to protect its jurisdic t i o n. See T EX
. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN
. § 22.221(a) (Ve rnon 2004) (providing that ea ch court of appe als or a justice of a c ourt of appe als may issue a writ of mandamus and all othe r w ri ts n e c e ssa ry to e nf or c e thejurisd ic tio n o f the c ou rt ); see also T EX
. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN
. § 22.221(b)( 1) (Ve rnon 2004) ( providing that eac h court of a ppeals may issue w rits of mandamus against a judge of a district or county in the court of appe als district).A t t ach ed t o R el at or’ s mandamus p et i t i on are wha t ap pear t o be copi es o f t he do cumen t s Respondent r et ur ned 1 t o h i m. Al t h ou g h t h e f i l e mar k i s al mos t i l l eg i bl e, we ca n s ee t h at t h e docu men t s h av e bee n s t ampe d “ f i l ed. ” Rel at or p o i nt s o ut t hat t here i s no s i gnat ure o f t he cl erk and no hand wri t t en cause num b er o n t he ret urned do cum ent s. H o wever, t here i s a hand wri t t en i ni t i al be si d e t he f i l e m ark, whi ch i s a co m m o n m anner of i d ent i f y i ng t he d ep ut y cl erk who p ro ce ssed t he d o cu m en t f o r f i l i ng . C o nse q ue ntl y, we ca nn o t say t ha t R esp o nd en t d i d no t f i l e R elato r’ s d o cu m en t s. 2 Her e, Relator alleges t h at R es p ondent failed to file the docume nts he prese nted for f iling, including a petition for expunc tion. Howeve r, he doe s not contend, and w e cannot conclude, that 1 Re sp on de nt h a s in te rf

e re d w iththi s c ou rt ’s jurisd ic tio n. Th e re fo re , we arewi tho ut j urisd ic tio n to consider Re lator’s petiti on. See In r e Be rna rd , 993 S.W.2d at 454. Acc ordingly, Relator’s pe tition fo r w ri t of

ma nd a mus is dismiss ed

.

SAM GR IF FI TH Justice
Opinion delivere d September 2, 2009. P an el consi s t ed of

W ort hen, C. J. , G r i

f f i t h, J. , and H oyl e, J.

(PUBLISH)
===================================================================================

UNITED STATESSECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSIONWashington, DC 20549FORM 10-QSB/A-1

[X]
     Quarterly Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED AUGUST 31, 2007OR[  ]
     Transition Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934For the transition period from to


Commission File Number 333-140587SINO CHARTER INC.(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)NEVADA(State of other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)

Block C Flat 410Lotus Hill Golf ApartmentsLotus Hill Town, Panyu DistrictGuangzhou, China 511440(Address of principal executive offices)

(86) 20-8484-7776(Registrant's telephone number, including area code)

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the Registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes [X]  No [  ]

The Registrant is a Shell company. Yes [X]  No [  ]

As of August 31, 2007, the Company had 10,000,000 shares of common stock outstanding.

===================================================================================



---

PART II. OTHER INFORMATION

ITEM 6.      EXHIBITS.

The following Exhibits are attached hereto:

Exhibit No.
     Document Description31.1
     Certification of Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer pursuant toRule 13a-15(a) and Rule 15d-15(a), promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of1934, as amended.32.1
     Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer Pursuant To 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 302 Of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002.






SIGNATURES

In accordance with the requirements of the Exchange Act, the registrant caused this amended report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized on this 12thday of December, 2007.

SINO CHARTER INC.(Registrant)BY:
     BRADLEY W. MILLERBradley W. MillerPresident, Principal Executive Officer,Secretary/Treasurer, Principal Financial Officer,Principal Accounting Officer and sole memberof the Board of Director














- 2 -

---

EXHIBIT INDEX

Exhibit No.
     Document Description31.1
     Certification of Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer pursuant toRule 13a-15(a) and Rule 15d-15(a), promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of1934, as amended.32.1
     Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer Pursuant To 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 302 Of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002.
































- 3 -

---
Exhibit
      32








**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 Don Marcos Trading Co. (the “Company”)
      on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2007 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), we, Earl
      T. Shannon and Scott W. Bodenweber, President and Chief Financial Officer of
      the
      Company, respectively, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant
      to § 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.







/s/
        Earl
        T. Shannon
 Earl
        T.
        Shannon,
 President
 November
        19, 2007




/s/
        Scott
        W. Bodenweber
 Scott
        W.
        Bodenweber,
 Chief
        Financial Officer
 November
        19, 2007
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DENNIS KING,

Plaintiff,

v.

T. BELL, 

Defendant.

 /

Case No. 09-10001

Honorable Patrick J. Duggan

OPINION AND ORDER

 At a session of said Court, held in the U.S.

District Courthouse, Eastern District 

of Michigan, on December 7, 2009.

PRESENT: THE HONORABLE PATRICK J. DUGGAN

U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, initiated this lawsuit in December 2008 pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 alleging a violation of his due process right to have a three-, rather than two-, member

panel decide whether he should be released on parole. Plaintiff also alleges that his “personal

history” contains a false statement that he has a history of substance abuse. On March 10,

2009, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment which this Court referred to

Magistrate Judge Michael Hluchaniuk.

On November 4, 2009, Magistrate Judge Hluchaniuk filed his Report and

Recommendation (R&R) recommending that this Court grant Defendant’s motion for

summary judgment on grounds that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies,

2:09-cv-10001-PJD-MJH Doc # 23 Filed 12/07/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 97
2

is barred from obtaining early release from prison by filing a civil suit, and failed to identify

a violation of a protected liberty interest justifying an award of damages. At the conclusion

of the R&R, Magistrate Judge Hluchaniuk advises the parties that they may object to and

seek review of the R&R within 10 days of service upon them. (R&R at 10.) He further

specifically advises the parties that “[f]ailure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver

of any further right of appeal.” ( Id.) Since the filing of Magistrate Judge Hluchaniuk’s

R&R the time for filing objections has been extended to 14 days. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. Both

the 10- and 14-day objection periods have now passed and neither party filed objections to

the R&R.

The Court has carefully reviewed the R&R and concurs with the conclusions reached

by Magistrate Judge Hluchaniuk.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.

A judgment consistent with this opinion shall issue.

s/PATRICK J. DUGGAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to:

Dennis King 

#364418 

Alger Maximum Correctional Facility 

P.O. Box 600 

Munsing, MI 49862 

Allan J. Soros, Esq.

2:09-cv-10001-PJD-MJH Doc # 23 Filed 12/07/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 98
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________ No. 95-60468 Summary Calendar

_____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus
DONNIE HOWARD McPHAIL, ET AL.,
Defendants,

LOU CAROLYN McPHAIL and SARAH TRILBY McPHAIL, Defendants-Appellants.

_________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Northern District of Mississippi

(3:92-CR-044)

_________________________________________________________________ July 17, 1996 Before JOLLY, JONES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: * In this appeal from denial of relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255,

Sarah and Lou Carolyn McPhail contend that the Supreme Court's
December 1995 decision in Bailey v. United States , 116 S.Ct. 501
(1995), requires that thei r convictions on Count 6 of the indictment be reversed. They argue that, in the light of Bailey ,-2-

the evidence was insufficient to support their convictions under 18

U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) and that the distr ict court incorrectly instructed the jury on the elements of the offense. Citing United States v. Graham , 688 F.2d 746, 747 (11th Cir.
1982), the government has filed a Confession of Error in lieu of an appellate brief on the merits. The government asserts that, under Bailey , there was insufficient evidence to sustain the jury's
verdict on the firearms count. The government concedes that "[t]he only evidence of record concerning the use or carriage of the six
firearms charged agai nst the Appellants is the testimony of the seizing officers that they were found lo aded in unspecified
locations" in the McPhails' home. The government states that it

does n ot oppose the vacation of the appellants' convictions and

sentences on Count 6 of the indictment for using and carrying a firearm in relation to a drug trafficking crime. Accordingly, the convictions and sentences under 18 U.S.C. §
924(c)(1), as reflected in Count 6 of the indictment, are VACATED

as to each appellant and the case is REMANDED to the district court for resentencing.

VACATED and REMANDED.