alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
214 La. 465

#### STATE v. LOWERY.

No. 39038.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 8, 1948.

Harvey G. Fields, of Farmerville, for defendant-appellant. *

Bolivar E. Kemp, Jr., Atty. Gen., M. E. Culligan, Asst. Atty. Gen. and Truett L. Scarborough, Dist. Atty., of Ruston, for ap-pellee,

FOURNET, Justice.

In this appeal by Aubry Lowery from a judgment convicting him of unlawfully handling and storing intoxicating liquor for the. purpose of sale in-the Parish of Union, where the sale of intoxicating liquors is prohibited by an ordinance of the Police Jury, and His sentence thereunder to serve 60 days in the parish jail and to pay a fine of $301 and costs (in default of paying the fine to' serve an additional eight months in jail), it is conceded by the state that the decision of this court in the case of State v. Kimble, 214 La. 58, 36 So.2d 637, where the identical issue here raised was presented and decided adversely to the cause of the state, is controlling, and, accordingly, that the defendant is entitled to a new trial since, contrary to the hearsay rule, the official testifying on behalf of the state was allowed to state over defendant’s objection that while he knew of no sale of intoxicating liquor by the defendant he had received complaints about him selling intoxicating liquor. This evidence was particularly prejudicial since there was no positive testimony of a sale of the liquor by the defendant.

For the reasons assigned, the conviction and sentence are annulled and set aside and the case is remanded for a new trial.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, in his capacity as the Chief Financial Officer of FGX International Holdings Limited (the "Company"), hereby certifies
that the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K for the period ended January 3, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.

March 12, 2009

/s/ ANTHONY DI PAOLA Anthony Di Paola Chief Financial Officer


---



QuickLinks
Blueprint




 





Exhibit
10.1

 

STOCK
AGREEMENT

 


WHEREAS, [NAME] is
a member of Liberated Syndication’s Board of Directors (the
“Director”) and has performed duties as a Director in a
capable and efficient manner, resulting in substantial benefit to
the Company; and


 


WHEREAS, The Board
of Directors has previously awarded 200,000 shares of the
Company’s common stock (the “stock”), subject to
certain milestones and forfeiture clauses to the
Director.


 


WHEREAS, the
Company desires to modify and the Stock Agreement dated December
15, 2017 (Original Agreement), of the Director. The terms of the
Original Agreement shall be amended to include:


 


In the
event of a Change of Control, all unvested shares shall immediately
vest upon the date of the Change of Control. Change of Control
shall be defined as outlined in the Liberated Syndication Inc. 2018
Omnibus Equity Incentive plan.

 

 

ACCEPTED
AND AGREED TO:

 

 

By: /
____________________________________

Name:

 

Liberated
Syndication Inc.

 

 

By:
___________________________________

Name:

Title:
Exhibit








Exhibit 10.5
FOURTH AMENDMENT
TO THE
BANK OF AMERICA PENSION RESTORATION PLAN
(AS AMENDED AND RESTATED EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2009)


Instrument of Amendment
THIS INSTRUMENT OF AMENDMENT (the “Instrument”) is executed by BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation with its principal office and place of business in Charlotte, North Carolina (the “Company”).
Statement of Purpose
By this Instrument, the Company is amending the Bank of America Pension Restoration Plan (Amended and Restated Effective January 1, 2009) (the “Plan”) to reflect relevant changes resulting from the merger of The Bank of America Pension Plan for Legacy Companies into The Bank of America Pension Plan.  The Company has reserved the right in Section 4.1 of the Plan to amend the Plan in whole or in part, on its own behalf and on behalf of its affiliated companies that participate in the Plan.
NOW THEREFORE, the Company hereby amends the Plan effective as of September 1, 2013: 
		
	1.
	Section 1.3 of the Plan is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows:


“1.3    Basic Plan
Before September 1, 2013, The Bank of America Pension Plan, and on and after September 1, 2013, The Bank of America Pension Plan for Legacy Bank of America, a component document of The Bank of America Pension Plan, each as in effect from time to time.”


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Bank of America Corporation, on behalf of all of the Participating Employers, has caused this Instrument to be duly executed on the 22 day of August, 2013.
BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION
By:   /s/ Richard J. Hille
Richard J. Hille
Global Head of Compensation and Benefits
187 La. 223

#### TYSON et al. v. SPEARMAN et al.

No. 34299.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 26, 1937.

Wilkinson, Lewis & Wilkinson, of Shreveport, for relators.

Cook, Cook & Egan, of Shreveport, for respondents.

FOURNET, Justice.

We granted a writ of certiorari in this case to review the ruling of the lower court allowing the plaintiffs the right to take the testimony of two nonresident defendants. under cross-examination, out of court, before the trial of the case, and suspended further proceedings on • a writ of prohibition, pending our determination of the issues involved. Subsequent thereto the plaintiff, in order to expedite the trial of the case, filed a motion to withdraw their application to cross-examine the defendants and requested the district court to revoke its order granting the motion, which was done.

*270It therefore follows that the complaint filed by the applicants for writs no longer exists and is now a moot question, which this court is not required to answer.

For the reasons assigned, the writs herein issued are recalled and defendants’ application is denied, at their cost.
Exhibit 10(a)

 

[SUTHERLAND ASBILL & BRENNAN LLP]

 

ELISABETH M. BENTZINGER

DIRECT LINE: 202.383.0717

E-mail: elisabeth.bentzinger@sutherland.com

 

	
 
    	
April 25, 2014
    


 

VIA EDGAR

 

Board of Directors

Protective Life Insurance Company

2801 Highway 280 South

Birmingham, Alabama 35223

 

	
Re:
    	
Protective Variable Annuity
    
	
 
    	
Post-Effective Amendment No. 25
    


 

Directors:

 

We hereby consent to the reference to our name under the caption “Legal Matters” in the Statement of Additional Information filed as part of Post-Effective Amendment No. 25 to the Registration Statement on Form N-4 (File No. 33-70984) by Protective Life Insurance Company and Protective Variable Annuity Separate Account with the Securities and Exchange Commission.  In giving this consent, we do not admit that we are in the category of persons whose consent is required under Section 7 of the Securities Act of 1933.

 

	
 
    	
Very truly yours,
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
SUTHERLAND ASBILL & BRENNAN LLP
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
By:
    	
/s/ Elisabeth M. Bentzinger
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Elisabeth M. Bentzinger
#### John D. Richeson, Plaintiff in Error, *v.*Ebenezer Z. Ryan, Assignee, &c., Defendant in Error.

ERROR TO GALLATIN.

The payment of a judgment, before execution issued, does not operate as a release of errors.

Eicheson brought this cause to this court by writ of error. Eyan filed his plea of release of errors, stating that Eicheson had voluntarily paid the judgment against him, to which plea a demurrer was interposed.

J. Olney and N. L. Freeman, for plaintiff in error.

W. Thomas, for defendant in error.

Treat, C. J.

Eyan recovered a judgment against Eicheson. The latter paid the judgment before an execution issued, and then sued out a writ of error to reverse it. Did the payment operate as a release of errors ? If the judgment had been collected by execution, there would not be a doubt of the right of Eicheson to prosecute the writ of error. A payment made under such circumstances would be compulsory, and would not preclude him from afterwards reversing the judgment, if erroneous, and then maintaining an action to recover back the amount paid. The payment in question must equally be considered as made under legal compulsion. The judgment fixed the liability of Eicheson, and he could only avoid payment by procuring its reversal. *He*was not bound to wait until payment should be demanded by the sheriff. He was at liberty to pay off the judgment at once, and thereby prevent the accumulation of interest and costs. By so doing, he did not waive his right to remove the record into this court, for the purpose of having the validity of the proceedings tested and determined. The pleas are bad, and the demurrer must be sustained.

*Demurrer sustained.*
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

August 8, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

136393 Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weave r Marilyn Kell y Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. COLLEEN WALLACE, Individually and as Stephen J. Markman, Personal Representative of the Estate of J ustices Michael Wallace, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 136393 COA: 282897 Sanilac CC: 06-000076-MZ MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF STATE POLICE, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _________________________/

On order of the Chief Ju stice, a stipulation signed by counsel for the parties agreeing to the dismissal of this application for l eave to appeal is considered, and the application for leave to appeal is DISM ISSED with prejudice and without costs.

t0806 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

August 8, 2008

Clerk
Order entered November 4 , 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 13
- 01504
- CV IN RE RAMIRO CHAPA, Relator
O riginal Proceeding from the 203rd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F04
- 36350
- P 

### O RDER Before Justices Moseley, Lang

- Miers, and Evans Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS relator’s petition for writ of habeas corpus. We ORDER that relator bear the costs of this original proceeding.
We DIRECT the Clerk to send a cop y of the opinion and order to Ramiro Chapa, No. 84564

- 079, FCI Forrest City Medium, Federal Correctional Institution, P.O. Box 3000, Forrest City, Arkansas 72336.
We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of relator’s petition, this Court’s opinion, and this orde r to the Presiding Judge of the 203rd Judicial District Court and to Michael Casillas, Appellate

- Chief, Dallas County District Attorney’s Office.

/s/ DAVID EVANS JUSTICE
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 Defense

###### Office of the Secretary 

          - [Docket ID: DOD-2008-OS-0088] 

# AGENCY:

Defense Logistics Agency, DoD. 

# ACTION:

Notice to delete a system of records.

# SUMMARY:

The Defense Logistics Agency is deleting a system of records notice in its existing inventory of record systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended. 

# DATES:

This action will be effective without further notice on September 22, 2008 unless comments are received that would result in a contrary determination. 

# ADDRESSES:

Send comments to the Privacy Act Officer, Headquarters, Defense Logistics Agency, ATTN: DP, 8725 John J. Kingman Road, Stop 2533, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6221. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. Jody Sinkler at (703) 767-5045. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The Defense Logistics Agency notices for systems of records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the                     **Federal Register**                     and are available from the address above.                 

The Defense Logistics Agency proposes to delete a system of records notice from its inventory of record systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended. The proposed deletion is not within the purview of subsection (r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, which requires the submission of a new or altered system report. 

Dated: August 15, 2008. 

Patricia Toppings, 

OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. 

## S100.90 

### System name:

Attorney Personnel Information and Applicant Files (May 13, 2004, 69 FR 26558). 

### Reason:

Records are covered by OPM Government-wide Privacy Act systems of records notices. 

 [FR Doc. E8-19509 Filed 8-21-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                       1,703,000
<SECURITIES>                                 1,970,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,577,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (178,000)
<INVENTORY>                                  6,646,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            12,368,000
<PP&E>                                       4,637,000
<DEPRECIATION>                             (2,408,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              17,516,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,968,000
<BONDS>                                      4,077,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       912,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   8,092,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                17,516,000
<SALES>                                      3,409,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,409,000
<CGS>                                        2,057,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,057,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,354,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              81,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (18,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (18,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (18,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Cite as 2014 Ark. 357

SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS

IN RE ARKANSAS BAR

EXAMINATION FEE

Opinion Delivered September 4, 2014

PER CURIAM

The Board of Law Examiners (Board) has made request to this Court for an increase

in the fee for the Arkansas Bar Examination. The fee for the Bar Examination was last set at

$400 by the court in a per curiam delivered November 30, 2006, effective for the July 2007

Exam. See In re Rules Governing Admission to the Bar of Arkansas, 368 Ark. App’x 698 (2006) 

(per curiam).

Since that time, there have been increases in many expenses associated with the

administration of the Bar Exam. As such, the Board unanimously recommended that the fee

be increased to $500, effective with the February 2015 Arkansas Bar Exam. The fee will still

be one of the lowest in the nation. We agree with the Board’s recommendation.

Therefore, in line with Rule XI of the Rules Governing Admission to the Bar, the

examination fee for the general Arkansas Bar Examination is set at $500, effective with the

February 2015 Bar Exam.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6106 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6106

 To amend title III of the Public Health Service Act to terminate the 
   effective time period for immunity for manufacturers of COVID-19 
                   vaccines, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            December 1, 2021

 Mr. Gooden of Texas introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title III of the Public Health Service Act to terminate the 
   effective time period for immunity for manufacturers of COVID-19 
                   vaccines, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. LIABILITY OF COVID-19 VACCINE MANUFACTURERS.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in applying section XII 
of the ``Declaration Under the Public Readiness and Emergency 
Preparedness Act for Medical Countermeasures Against COVID-19'' issued 
pursuant to section 319F-3(b)(2)(B) of the Public Health Service Act 
(42 U.S.C. 247d-6d(b)(2)(B)), with respect to manufacturers of COVID-19 
vaccines, the reference to October 1, 2024, shall be deemed a reference 
to December 1, 2021.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

WILLIE MAURICE HARRIS,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 467 WAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 22nd day of May, 2019, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6105 

To terminate the public health emergency with respect to COVID–19 on 

December 25, 2021. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 1, 2021 

Mr. GOHMERT (for himself, Mrs. CAMMACK, Mr. GOSAR, Mr. BIGGS, Mr. 

MASSIE, Mr. GAETZ, and Mr. TIFFANY) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To terminate the public health emergency with respect to 

COVID–19 on December 25, 2021. 

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

3 SECTION 1. TERMINATING PUBLIC HEALTH EMERGENCY 

4 FOR COVID–19. 

5 The public health emergency declared pursuant to 

6 section 319 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 

7 247d) with respect to COVID–19, including any renewal 

8 thereof, is deemed to terminate on December 25, 2021. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>




<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This  schedule  contains  summary  financial   information  extracted  from
financial  statements for the six month period ended June 30, 1999 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000075053
<NAME>                        D-lanz Development Group, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     $

<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 Jan-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   Jun-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         528
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               528
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 253,028
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          500
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       10,100
<OTHER-SE>                                     242,428
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   252,528
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  1,906
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,906)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,906)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,906)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  .00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .00





</TABLE>