alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AUGUST 14, 2014

NO. 03

- 13

- 00268

- CR

Reynaldo Hernandez, Jr., Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 331ST DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, GOODWIN, AND FIELD MODIFIED AND, AS MODIFIED, AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE PURYEAR

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction entered by the tr i a l court. Having reviewed

the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court ho lds that there was no error in the court’s

judgment requiring reversal

. However, there was error in the judgment that requires correction.

Therefore, the Court modifies the trial court’s judgment to reflect that appellant pleaded true to

the enhancement allegations . The judgment, as modified , is affirmed

. Because appellant is

indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs is made.
Document

Exhibit 10.3.2


FIRST AMENDMENT
TO THE
THIRD AMENDED AND RESTATED
CHANGE OF CONTROL AGREEMENT FOR 
STEVE HILTON




      Meritage Homes Corporation, a Maryland corporation (the “Company”), and Steven J. Hilton (“Executive”) entered into an Amended and Restated Change of Control Agreement effective as of January 1, 2010 (the “Agreement”).  By execution of this Amendment, the Company now desires to amend the agreement as set forth below.
Company now desires to amend the Agreement as set forth below:
1.This First Amendment shall be effective as of January 1, 2010.
2.Section 2(ii)(y) of the Agreement is hereby amended by replacing the word “or” immediately before subpart (B) with the word “and.”
3.Pursuant to IRS Notice 2010-6, the third paragraph of Section 2 of the Agreement is hereby amended by adding the following sentence to the end thereof:
Notwithstanding anything in this Section 2 to the contrary, if the 
60 day payment distribution period referred to above spans two
calendar years, the Severance Payment to which you are entitled
shall be paid to you in the second calendar year.
4.This First Amendment amends only provisions of the Agreement as noted herein, and those provisions not expressly amended shall be considered in full force and effect. Notwithstanding the foregoing, this First Amendment shall supersede the provisions of the Agreement to the extent those provisions are inconsistent with provisions and the intent of this First Amendment.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this First Amendment to be executed as of this ______ day of _________________, 2012.
MERITAGE HOMES CORPORATION, a 
Maryland Corporation






















By: ___________________________________
Name: _________________________________
Title: __________________________________


EXECUTIVE: STEVEN J. HILTON
______________________________________
Exhibit







Exhibit 10.60



FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE 
BAKER HUGHES COMPANY EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN 

THIS AMENDMENT by Baker Hughes Company (the “Company”),
W I T N E S S E T H:
WHEREAS, the Company previously adopted the Baker Hughes Company Employee Stock Purchase Plan, previously named the Baker Hughes, a GE company Employee Stock Purchase Plan (the “Plan”);
WHEREAS, the name of Baker Hughes, a GE company has changed to Baker Hughes Company; 
WHEREAS, General Electric Company has reduced its ownership interest in the Company to less than 50 percent of the outstanding equity securities of the Company;
WHEREAS, the Company reserved the right in Section 10.3 to amend the Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Company has determined to amend the Plan;
NOW, THEREFORE, effective January 1, 2020, the Plan is hereby amended as follows:
(1)    Section 2.22 of the Plan is amended to provide as follows: 
“Plan” means the Baker Hughes Company Employee Stock Purchase Plan, as amended from time to time.


(2)    Section 2.2 of the Plan is amended to provide as follows:
“Affiliate” means any entity that directly, or indirectly through one or more intermediaries, controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with, the Company.









IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to be executed on the 31st day of January, 2020.
BAKER HUGHES COMPANY  
 
/s/ Manjit Gill  
By:    Manjit Gill  
Title:  Vice President, Total Rewards
#### Debra ST. JOHN, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 02-2738.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted March 11, 2003.

Decided March 17, 2003.

*912Before McMILLIAN, FAGG, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Debra St. John brought suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2671-80 (2000), alleging Richard Coleman, her ex-husband, falsely arrested and imprisoned her and sexually assaulted her in the scope of his employment as a Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) police officer. The district court* found for St. John on the false arrest and imprisonment claims and awarded her $3000.00 in damages. On appeal we affirmed in part, upholding the judgment and award based on St. John’s false arrest and imprisonment claims, and reversed in part, remanding for factual findings about whether the alleged sexual assault occurred in the scope of Coleman’s employment. *St John v. United States,*240 F.3d 671, 678-79 (8th Cir.2001). Specifically, we informed the district court that it was impossible for this court to decide whether Coleman, who earlier arrested and jailed St. John, was acting within the scope of his employment without knowing whether he threatened her with rearrest to compel her to enter his truck after he released her from jail, thus coercing her to accompany him to an out-of-the-way place where the sexual incident occurred. *Id.*at 677.

On remand, the district court was faced with diametrically opposed accounts: St. John claimed Coleman threatened to put her back in j ah if she did not get into his truck, and Coleman claimed he made no such threat and St. John willingly entered and rode away in his truck. Recognizing it was faced -with a critical credibility determination, the district court carefully explained why it resolved the testimonial conflict in Coleman’s favor, and thus dismissed the sexual assault charge because Coleman was not acting in the scope of his employment during the sexual incident.

On appeal, St. John claims the district court’s finding was clearly erroneous. We disagree. Because St. John essentially seeks our “reevaluation of the evidence and rejection of the district court’s factual findingf ],” an extended discussion of the issue presented by this appeal would serve no useful purpose. *Craft v. Metromedia, Inc.,*766 F.2d 1205, 1211 (8th Cir.1985). In this circuit, it is well established that a finding based on the district court’s credibility determination to believe the live testimony of one of two contradictory witnesses “can virtually never be clear error.” *Bush v. Marshalltown Med. & Surgical Ctr.,*123 F.3d 1130, 1134 (8th Cir.1997); *see Craft,*766 F.2d at 1212. Thus, having concluded the district court’s finding is not clearly erroneous and the sexual incident occurred outside the scope of Coleman’s employment, we do not reach the issue of whether the sexual incident was consensual or not.

Having carefully considered St. John’s contention and finding it to be without merit, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of St. John’s sexual assault claim.

*

 The Honorable Charles B. Kommann, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota.
18422.

#### Mahon *et al. v.*Duncan *et al.*

Submitted January 11, 1954

Decided January 11, 1954.

*Samuel E. Tyson, Francis M. Rich, Jr.,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Mixon & Chambers, Oliver K. Mixon,*contra.

Worrill, Justice.

The present bill of exceptions contains the following acknowledgment of service: "Counsel of record for defendants in error approve the bill of exceptions as correct and complete as to averments ■ of fact therein contained and the privilege of being heard on the question of whether or not said bill of exceptions as tendered is correct and complete and the requirement of notice thereof is hereby waived.” *Held:*

There being no acknowledgment of service as required by Code § 6-911, or waiver, of the bill of exceptions after certification by the trial judge, this court has no jurisdiction, and the writ of error must be dismissed. *Peterson*v. *Peterson,*209 *Ga.*529 (74 S. E. 2d 549), and cases cited.

*Writ of error dismissed.*

*All the Justices concur, except Duckworth, C. J., not participating.*
**Exhibit 10.61**

**SCHEDULE OF PARTIES TO FORM OF**

**SEVERANCE AGREEMENT**

Each of the parties identified in the table below is party to a severance agreement with Remington Arms Company, Inc. (the “Company”) substantially in the form attached as Exhibit 10.60 to the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2008, previously filed as Exhibit 10.1 to the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on February 20, 2009. Each            party’s severance agreement is identical except for such party’s position. 

 

| **Employee Name**  | **Position**               |
|--------------------|----------------------------|
| John M. Dwyer, Jr. | Chief Technology Officer   |
| Igor Popov         | Chief Supply Chain Officer |
IIA

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 606

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 29 (legislative day, MARCH 27), 1995

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural

Resources

AN ACT

To amend the Dayton Aviation Heritage Preservation Act

of 1992, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That section 201(b) of the Dayton Aviation Heritage

4 Preservation Act of 1992 (Public Law 102–419, approved

5 October 16, 1992), is amended as follows:
2

HR 606 RFS

1 (1) In paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘from rec2 ommendations’’ and inserting ‘‘after consideration of

3 recommendations’’.

4 (2) In paragraph (4), by striking ‘‘from rec5 ommendations’’ and inserting ‘‘after consideration of

6 recommendations’’.

7 (3) In paragraph (5), by striking ‘‘from rec8 ommendations’’ and inserting ‘‘after consideration of

9 recommendations’’.

10 (4) In paragraph (6), by striking ‘‘from rec11 ommendations’’ and inserting ‘‘after consideration of

12 recommendations’’.

13 (5) In paragraph (7), by striking ‘‘from rec14 ommendations’’ and inserting ‘‘after consideration of

15 recommendations’’.

Passed the House of Representatives March 28,

1995.

Attest: ROBIN H. CARLE,

Clerk.
#### Fred. Bittman, Respondent, v. Walter F. Duckworth, Appellant.

Motion granted, with costs. Present — Woodward, Jenks, Hooker, Gaynor and Miller, JJ.
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
  In
connection with the Quarterly Report of BLS Media, Inc. a Nevada corporation
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2008, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Gary
Prager, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies to the best of his
knowledge, 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.
  A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
BLS Media, Inc., and will be retained by BLS Media, Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


/s/ Gary
      PragerGary Prager
                  Chief Financial
      Officer
                  August
      14, 2008
<PAGE>

                                                                    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

      In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Equity Inns, Inc.
(the "Company") for the year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, J.
Mitchell Collins, 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 results of operations of the
Company.

March 16, 2005              By: /s/ J. Mitchell Collins
                            ---------------------------
                            Name: J. Mitchell Collins
                            Title: Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Moore Medical Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 27, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
I, John M. Zinzarella, Vice President of Finance, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) and
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



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



|/s/ John M. Zinzarella                                                                 
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|John M. Zinzarella, CPA Vice President of Finance, Treasurer andChief Financial Officer
|November 12, 2003
#### STATE v. HENRY EDWARD TOFTELAND.1

November 19, 1943.

No. 33,595.

*M. Tedd Evans*and *Louis R. Smith,*for appellant.

*Mort B. Slcewes,*County Attorney, for the State.

1

Reported in 11 N. W. (2d) 826.

Magney, Justice.

In a proceeding to determiue paternity, defendant was found to be the father of complainant’s twin female children. He appeals from the order denying his motion to set aside the verdict and for a néw trial.

The children were born on July 28, 1942. Defendant admits having had sexual intercourse with complaining witness on November 16, 1941. Her last menstrual period commenced November 6, 1941. From that date to July 28, 1942, 264 days elapsed, thus lacking 16 days of the usual full period.

It is defendant’s position that complainant had intercourse with another man on November 25, 1941, and that no one can determine who is the father of her children. The other man so testifies. Complainant admits intercourse Avith the. other man but' claims it did not take place until January 1942. Both complainant and the *129other man testified that after the intercourse she was driven to the house in Luverne where she was staying. According to complainant’s testimony, she did not move into this house until after New Year’s 1912. In this she is corroborated by her brother.

The county attorney first filed an information in this matter. Defendant claims that he was prejudiced thereby. The filing of the information did not come to the attention of the jury. The court instructed the jury that the proceeding was brought upon the complaint of Julia Jensen, in the name of the state, its purpose being to determine the paternity of her illegitimate children. No possible prejudice could have resulted from the filing of the information.

The question of guilt was one of fact for the jury.

Affirmed.

Mr. Justice Loring, absent because of accidental injuries, took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA F OURTH D ISTRICT

J.V., a C hild , Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee

.

No. 4D 20

- 2495

[ November 10, 2021 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; Gregory M. Keyser , Judge; L.T. Case No. 50

- 2019

- CJ

001944

- XXXX

- MB

.
Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Nancy Jack, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Alexandra A. Folley, Assistan t Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.
Affirmed

.

C ONNER , C.J., F ORST and K UNTZ , JJ., c oncur

.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### Ignatius LOCOCO v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2270.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

Oct. 8, 1941.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 19, 1941.

Writ of Error Refused Jan. 5, 1942.

Tom M. Hayes, Jr., of Baton Rouge, for appellant.

Clarence Dowling, of New Orleans, for appellee. ’

LeBLANC, Judge.

For the reasons stated in the opinion this day handed down in the case of Anthony Pendola et al. v. State of Louisiana, 4 So.2d 28, which had been consolidated with this case, it is ordered that the judgment appealed from be and the same is hereby affirmed.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

**ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Moore Medical Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 28, 2003, as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, John M. Zinzarella, Vice President of Finance, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge: 

 

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

 

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

 

/s/ John M.Zinzarella                

John M. Zinzarella, CPA 

Vice President of Finance, Treasurer and 

Chief Financial Officer 

August 12, 2003
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 of Levcor
         International, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended June
         30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
         date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert A. Levinson, Chief Executive
         Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to section 906 of the
         Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

         (1)      the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
                  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

Dated:   August 11, 2006
         ---------------

By: /s/ ROBERT A. LEVINSON
    ------------------------------------
    Robert A. Levinson
    Chief Executive Officer


                                    Page 45
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



In connection with the Annual Report of The Pantry, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended September 28, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Daniel J. Kelly, Vice President, 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, to my knowledge, that:



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



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



/S/    DANIEL J. KELLYDaniel J. KellyVice President andChief Financial OfficerDate: December 12, 2006




This
Certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and shall not be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, whether
made before or after the date of this Report, irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other documents authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                      16,458,654
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                5,794,814
<ALLOWANCES>                                   316,000
<INVENTORY>                                  2,266,234
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            25,237,962
<PP&E>                                       9,451,238
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,592,353
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              41,089,452
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       15,374,498
<BONDS>                                      5,895,701
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        1,753,928
<PREFERRED>                                          5
<COMMON>                                         5,975
<OTHER-SE>                                  12,073,314
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                41,089,452
<SALES>                                     14,066,630
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            19,062,788
<CGS>                                       10,958,024
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               17,160,976
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             8,592,137
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          11,295,382
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (28,577,642)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (28,577,642)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (28,577,642)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (4.70)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (4.70)


</TABLE>