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





Exhibit 10(hh)





NEXTERA ENERGY, INC.
NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR COMPENSATION SUMMARY
(Effective January 1, 2020)


	
		
	Annual Retainer
     (payable quarterly in common stock or cash)
	$105,000

	Board or Committee meeting fee
	$2,000/meeting

	Audit Committee Chair retainer (annual)
     (payable quarterly)
	$25,000

	Lead Director retainer (annual)
     (payable quarterly)
	$30,000

	Compensation and Nuclear Committee Chair retainer (annual)
     (payable quarterly)
	$20,000

	Other Committee Chair retainer (annual)
     (payable quarterly)
	$15,000

	Annual grant of restricted stock
     (under 2017 Non-Employee Directors Stock Plan)
	That number of shares determined by dividing $170,000 by closing price of NextEra Energy common stock on effective date of grant (rounded up to the nearest 10 shares)

	Miscellaneous
	- Travel and Accident Insurance (including spouse coverage)

	 
	- Travel and related expenses while on Board business, and actual administrative or similar expenses incurred for Board or Committee business, are paid or reimbursed by the Company.  Directors may travel on Company aircraft in accordance with the Company’s Aviation Policy (primarily to or from Board meetings and while on Board business; in limited circumstances for other reasons if the Company would incur little if any incremental cost, space is available and the aircraft is already in use for another authorized purpose - may be accompanied by immediate family members when space is available).

	 
	- Directors may participate in the Company’s Deferred Compensation Plan.

	 
	- Directors may participate in the Company’s matching gift program, which matches gifts to educational institutions to a maximum of $10,000 per donor.
Electronically FiledIntermediate Court of AppealsCAAP-11-000080612-MAR-201308:36 AM
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 23, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-51155

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

FRANCISCO RUIZ-PONCE, also known as

Francisco Reyes-Ponce,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. EP-02-CR-610-1

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

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Francisco Ruiz-Ponce appeals the sentence imposed following

his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States

after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Ruiz

contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) define

separate offenses. He argues that the prior conviction that

resulted in his increased sentence is an element of a separate

offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should have been alleged in

his indictment. Ruiz maintains that he pleaded guilty to an
No. 02-51155

-2-

indictment which charged only simple reentry under 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(a). He argues that his sentence exceeds the two-year

maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for that

offense.

In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235

(1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of

separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing

provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. 

Ruiz acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres, but asserts that the decision has been cast

into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). 

He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. 

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres

“unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule

it.” Dabeit, 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and

citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of

filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks

that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED. 

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                          CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the previously filed
registration statements of Boardwalk Casino, Inc. on Forms S-8 (file No.'s
333-05019 and 333-05021) of our report dated November 24, 1997, except for Note
2 as to which the date is January 5, 1998, on our audits of the financial
statements of Boardwalk Casino, Inc. as of and for the years ended September 30,
1997 and 1996, included in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the
fiscal year ended September 30, 1997.

/s/ Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P.

COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.

Las Vegas, Nevada
January 5, 1998
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








In connection with the Quarterly Report of FLM Minerals Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended February 28, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the “report”), I, Xin Chen, Chief Executive Officer and 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Dated this 19th day of April, 2011.








XIN CHENXin ChenChief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
#### V. L. ANDREWS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Addie McDuff ANDREWS et al., Defendants-Appellants.

No. 5261.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

June 26, 1936.

Irion & Switzer, of Shreveport, for appellants.

Mabry & Carstarphen, of Shreveport, for appellee.

TALIAFERRO, Judge.

The appeal herein was perfected by defendants, Mrs. Addie McDuff Andrews and J. T. Raney, from a judgment of the lower court, adverse to their contentions.

Prior to submission of the case in this court, appellants’ counsel filed a written motion praying that the appeal be dismissed. A copy of this motion was served upon counsel for appellee prior to the case being submitted here and, otherwise, we know that these counsel are cognizant of appellants’ desire to have their appeal dismissed. They have made'no opposition thereto and, *ijr*this reason, we assume they concur in the motion.

It is now ordered that the appeal be and it is hereby dismissed.
#### Gustaf M. Perander, Respondent, v. The Brooklyn Heights Railroad Company, Appellant.

Judgment and order of the Municipal Court reversed and new trial ordered, costs to abide the event, on the ground that the plaintiff failed to make out a case establishing his freedom from negligence contributing to the accident. (See *Lofsten*v. *Brooklyn Heights Railroad*Co., 184 N. Y. 148, and authorities cited.) Woodward, Jenks, Gaynor, Burr and Rich, JJ., concurred.
#### VICKERS v. HUGHES (TURNER, Intervener).*

No. 5007.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

April 1, 1935.

Watkins & Watkins, of Minden, for appellant.

John T. Campbell, of Minden, for appellee.

*

Rehearing denied May 2, 1935.

TALIAFERRO, Judge.

The sole question at issue in this case is whether plaintiff, chattel mortgage holder, or third opponent, lessor, is entitled to be paid by preference the proceeds of sale of chattels of defendant, purchased by him from plaintiff and used for several years in the building of third opponent.

Third opponent contends that the chattels were purchased and placed in his building by defendant prior to the execution and filing of the chattel piortgage given plaintiff to secure the unpaid part of the purchase price thereof. Plaintiff controverts this position, and further pleads that third opponent orally expressly waived the lessor’s lien and privilege in favor of the chattel mortgage on such part of said chattels as were carried into the leased premises prior to filing the mortgage.

We are satisfied'from the evidence in the case that only a small portion of the chattels were unloaded into the leased premises before the chattel mortgage was filed. Therefore the lessor’s privilege on the chattels placed in the building after the mortgage was filed was subordinate in rank to the effect of the chattel mortgage. The record does not disclose the identity of the chattels first placed in the building. The entirety of the mortgaged property was sold in mass under the mortgage and bought in by third opponent. No separate appraisement was asked by him of that part thereof placed in his building before the mortgage was filed. It follows, as a legal result, that his privilege thereon was lost by allowing the affected goods to be sold 'in mass with goods not so affected. It is therefore unnecessary to decide whether third opponent waived the lessor’s privilege in favor of the chattel mortgage.

In brief, counsel for third opponent advances the belated contention that the de-*155seription of the property in the chattel- mortgage is so vague and indefinite that it cannot he identified therefrom. This question was not raised by the pleadings. It is established, however, that the chattels described in the- act of mortgage were placed in the leased premises, and are the same as were seized and sold by the sheriff under foreclosure of the mortgage. Third opponent purchased all of the property when sold by the sheriff. Under these circumstances, he cannot now be heard to raised this belated issue.

The lower court decided the issue discussed in favor of plaintiff. Third opponent appealed. We are of the opinion the judgment is correct. It is affirmed, with costs.
### FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT 07/06/99 THOMAS K. KAHN CLERK PUBLISH IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________________ No. 97-6910

________________________________ D.C. Docket No. 97-P-1300-S UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus PEMCO AEROPLEX, INC., a subsidiary of Precision Standard Company, a corporation, Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama

_________________________________________________________________ (Opinion February 8 , 1999, 166 F.3d 1311, 11th Cir., 1999) (July 6, 1999) Before ANDERSON, Chief Judge, TJOF LAT, EDMONDSON, COX, BIRCH, DUBINA, BLACK, CARNES, BARKETT, HULL and MARCUS, Circuit Judges. B Y T H E C O U R T :2 A member of this court in active service having requested a poll on whether this case should be reheard by the Court sitting en banc, and a majority of the judges in this court in active service having voted in favor of granting a rehearing en banc, IT IS ORDERED that the above cause shall be reheard by this court en banc. The previous panel's opinion is hereby VACATED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          11,746
<SECURITIES>                                    59,032
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,956
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                73,742
<PP&E>                                           3,913
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (1,447)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  78,209
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,538
<BONDS>                                          1,677
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               13
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      72,413
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    78,209
<SALES>                                          2,232
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,515
<CGS>                                              705
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   19,875
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (124)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (9,468)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        20
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (9,488)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (9,488)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.72)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.72)


</TABLE>
# I ,. 2 L
. I i ‘ z-. OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS b AUSTIN 3-GHANR
-- HonorableWilliam J. Lawson Seoretaryof State km t in, Texas
Dear Sir: Be: one 00

Lone star GM Oorpor ce holding oompnny, and it8 subrldiari tion, UommunltyEia Tex8s Cltler Ga8 0
store and oreatrtwo e assets ot all tha ol4 rations are idimiri84 it is propose4 that oor00mpany,~an4 that

Corporation "Au will not

0t Arti0ie 1302, v. A. 0. s.

Base4 upon euoh iaot situation,you propoun4 the pueetion:

V&n Corporation

A, whloh will be ohartere4 under eubdlviaion36 of hrtiole 1302, ati whioh will engage in the purohasr, trmalniseion and
. dietributlon

of natural gas to the gsnera;l publio,Honorable %SIllIam J. Lawson, page 2

own ond hold the stock of CorporationB, which will also be ohartaredunder subdivlslon 36 or Artiale 1302 and whiah will engage IA the 011 and g&e produalngbusiness, it being understoodthat Corporation A will not itself dlreotly engage IA the 011 an4 gas producingbusiness,but will engage thereln lndlreotlythrough Its ownershipof the stock of CorporationBP" Sub4lvlsIon36 or Artlole 1302, V. A. C. S., as amendedby Rots or 1935, Forty-rourthLegislature,Page 296, Ohapter 110, reada: wiirtiole 1302 - Purposes - The purposes ror which private oorporations may be formed are8
a * l * “36. To store, transport,buy an4 sell oil, gas, salt, brine and other mineral solutionsan4 llquIrle4 minerals; also sand an4 olay for the manuraoture and sale or clay pro4wts.w Wq held In our Opinion MO. O-3003 that the rights, ' benelite an4 privilegesoonterredby Chapter 15, Title 32, V. A. C. S., oould be adopted by those oorporatlonsohartered or holding a roreign permit uader aubblvialon36 oi Artlole 1302, eupra. XrtIole 1502, V. A. C. S., oontained IA Chapter 15, arrorde one ot suoh right.8 an4 privilegesen4 It Is :~p&.artlale to whloh we must look for the answer to the epeolrlo queitlon berore'ti. It reads: *In lieu or engagfngdlreotly IA the oil an4 gas pro4uofng business IA any State or oonntry, a oorjioratloa

organized under this ohapter an4 authorized to ewhge in said produoingbusinessmay own the stock of other aorporetlonaengaged therein, provided that It shall not own the etoak of more than one producing corporation,or one pipe line crorporation, organizedunder the laws of this or any other single State. No oorporatlonorganIze4 In any other state or country shall be permitted to own or operate oilpipe lines or engage In the oil produolngbusiness In this State when the stock of suoh oorporation icr omed In whole or In part by a oorporatlonorganized un3er this ohapter."
There la no questionbut that a r?OrpOratiOA oreated mder subdivision36, supra, has the right to enga@e in the oil an4 gar pro4uoIngbuolnesa. Article 1499 also oontalned in Chapt8r 15 expresslyOOArer6 euch rights. It Is our oplnlm that the propose4 oorporatlon*A ’ sin lieu of engagingdireotly In the 011 and gas pro4uolng busiPeesWmay own stook of the proposed oorporatloncrB.n We era returning the instrumentssubmittedwith your lettsr 0r request. Your8 very truly ATTCRNEY Gl?NERE,L

OF TECS 

# BY Lloyd Awstroag

Assi8tant
EXHIBIT 32.2




CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




Ran Daniel, Chief Financial Officer and Director of Suspect Detection Systems, Inc. (the “Registrant”), certifies, under the standards set forth and solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Registrant for the quarter ended June30, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in that Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.




Date: May 13, 2011By:
/s/ Ran DanielName:
Ran DanielTitle:
Chief Financial Officer and Director

(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)




A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
No. 07-16-00110-CV

In the Interest of L.R., a Child §

§

§

§

From the 99th District Court 

 of Lubbock County

April 14, 2016

Opinion Per Curiam

J U D G M E N T

Pursuant to the opinion of the Court dated April 14, 2016, it is ordered, adjudged 

and decreed that this appeal be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

It is further ordered that appellant pay all costs in this behalf expended for which 

let execution issue.

It is further ordered that this decision be certified below for observance.

o O o
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

,

Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh

Elizabeth M. Welch

,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

Ma y 2 1 , 2021 

# Order

Clerk Ma y 2 1 , 2021

162 818 ( 66 )

LAURA FRIZZO

,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

SC: 162818

v COA: 347361

Iron CC: 17

- 005475

- CZ

CITY OF IRON RIVER and DAVID THAYER

,

Defendants

- Appellees

.

_______ ______________________________ ____ _ /

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of defendants

- appellees to extend the time

for filing t he i r answ er to the application for leave to appeal is GRANTED. The answ er

s ubmitted on May 18, 2021, is accepted as timely filed.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                     EXHIBIT 4.3



         Effective as of December 27, 2000, the text of Section 10.2 of the
Partnership Agreement was designated as paragraph (a) of such Section, and a new
paragraph (b) was added to Section 10.2 reading in its entirety as follows:

                  "(b)Notwithstanding any other provision of this Article 10, a
         Unitholder may at any time sell or transfer its Units to any other
         Unitholder or the Managing General Partner in whole and not in part,
         and any Unitholder or the Managing General Partner may at any time
         purchase the Units of any other Unitholder, in each such case on such
         terms and provisions as such Unitholders or the Managing General
         Partner, as applicable, may mutually agree."
Exhibit 32.1






CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002






In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2010 (the “Report”) by China Sports Holding Company Limited (the “Company”), I, Mendoza Anding Lin, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as added by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my knowledge:




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




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




CHINA SPORTS HOLDING COMPANY LIMITEDDate: August 16, 2010
By:
/s/ Mendoza Anding LinMendoza Anding LinPresident, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman




This certification accompanies each Report pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. A signed original of this written statement required by §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished upon request.
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


We consent to the  incorporation by reference in Post Effective  Amendment No. 1
to Registration  Statement No. 33-94914 on Form S-8,  Registration No. 333-30237
on Form S-8 and Registration  No. 333-22535 on Form S-3 of Hirsch  International
Corp.  and  Subsidiaries  of our report dated April 19, 2002,  appearing in this
Annual Report on Form 10-K of Hirsch  International  Corp. and  Subsidiaries for
the year ended January 31, 2002.





By: /s/ BDO Seidman, LLP
   ------------------------------
     BDO Seidman, LLP
     Melville, New York
     April 30, 2002
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

ALISHA WALKER, 

Plaintiff, 

v. Case No. 09-11854

Hon. Lawrence P. Zatkoff

CITY OF DETROIT and 

VICTOR HICKS, 

Defendants. 

 /

ORDER TO REMAND IN PART

Plaintiff filed her complaint in the Wayne County Circuit Court. Defendant City of Detroit

timely removed the action to this Court on May 14, 2009, based on federal-question jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Plaintiff’s complaint contains the following four counts:

Count I Gross Negligence; Intentional, Willful, and Wanton Misconduct

Count II Excessive Force—42 U.S.C. § 1983

Count III Assault and Battery

Count IV Deprivation of Civil Rights (Defendant City of Detroit)—42 U.S.C. § 1983

The Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over Counts II and IV because they arise under

federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Counts I and III, however, are based on state law. Although the

Court has supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), the Court

may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if there are “compelling reasons for declining

jurisdiction.” Id. § 1367(c)(4). The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over

Plaintiff’s state-law claims in this matter. The Court finds that the contemporaneous presentation

of Plaintiff’s parallel state claims for relief will result in the undue confusion of the jury. See id.;

2:09-cv-11854-LPZ-VMM Doc # 8 Filed 06/08/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 45
2

see also Padilla v. City of Saginaw, 867 F. Supp. 1309, 1315 (E.D. Mich. 1994). 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s state-law claims (Counts I and III) are hereby

REMANDED to the Wayne County Circuit Court. The Court retains jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s

federal claims (Counts II and IV).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

S/Lawrence P. Zatkoff 

LAWRENCE P. ZATKOFF

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: June 8, 2009

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of this Order was served upon the attorneys of record

by electronic or U.S. mail on June 8, 2009.

S/Marie E. Verlinde 

Case Manager

(810) 984-3290

2:09-cv-11854-LPZ-VMM Doc # 8 Filed 06/08/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 46