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

JUDGMENT RENDERED NO VEMBER 7, 2018

NO. 03

- 17

- 00566

- CV

Ex parte City of El Paso

APPEAL FROM 250TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY
BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUSTICES PEMBERTON A ND FIELD
JUSTICE PE MBERTON NOT PARTICIP ATING REVERSED AND RENDERED IN PART, AFFIRMED IN PART

— OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE

This is an appeal from the final judgment signed by the district court on A ugust 7, 2017 . Having

reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was reversible error in

part of the court’s judgment . Therefore, the Court reverses the district court’s judgment in part

and renders judgment as to those pa rts as follows:

• Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the district court’s judgment are deleted;

• The following paragraph is added as a declaration to the judgment:

The City may lawfully expend proceeds generated from the sale of the Bonds to acquire land, design, con struct, improve, renovate, and equip a multipurpose performing arts and entertainment facility located in downtown El Paso. The term “multipurpose performing arts and entertainment,” as a matter of law, includes sports and sporting events, but the Facility may not be designed, constructed, improved, renovated, or equipped exclusively for sports and sporting events;

• in paragraph 7 of the district court’s judgment, the phrase “Subject to paragraphs 5 and 6

above” is deleted;

• paragraph 9 of the district c ourt’s judgment is deleted; and• the second full paragraph on page 4 of the district court’s judgment (page 1587 of the

clerk’s record) is replaced with the following:

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, as specified by Texas Government Code section 1205.151, th is Final Judgment is a permanent injunction against the filing by any person or entity of any proceeding contesting the validity of the bonds, the authorization of the bonds, the expenditure of money relating to the bonds in conformity with this judgment, the provisions made for payment of the bonds or of interest thereon, any matter adjudicated by this Final Judgment, and any matter that could have been raised in these proceedings.

The remainder of the district court’s judgment is affirmed. Each party sh all bear its own costs

relating to this appeal, both in this Court and in the court below.
**Exhibit 13.1**

 

**Certification of Chief Executive Officer**

**Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of WNS (Holdings) Limited (the “Company”) hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that:

 

(i)                  the accompanying annual report on Form 20-F of the Company for the year ended March 31, 2013 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

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

 

Date: May 2, 2013

 
|   |                            |
|--------|---------------------------------|
| By:    | /s/   Keshav R. Murugesh        |   |
| Name:  | Keshav   R. Murugesh            |   |
| Title: | Group   Chief Executive Officer |   |

 

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and is not being “filed” either as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure statement, and is not to be incorporated by reference into the Report or any other filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing. The foregoing certification shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or otherwise subject to the liabilities of Section 18 or Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.

 

----
Exhibit 21.1

Subsidiaries of FGX International Holdings Limited

Name of Subsidiary

Jurisdiction of Organization

Fictitious NameFGX International Limited

British Virgin Islands

None.FGX International LimitedChina

China

None.FGX International Inc.

Delaware

None.Quantum Optics, Inc.

Delaware

None.Quantum Direct LLC

Rhode Island

None.FGX Canada Corp.

Nova Scotia, Canada

None.FGX Europe Limited

United Kingdom

None.AAi/Joske's S. de R.L. de C.V. (joint venture)

Mexico

None.Foster Grant Hong Kong Limited

Hong Kong

None.Fantasma Hong Kong Limited

Hong Kong

None.Dioptics Medical Products, Inc.

California

None.Corinne McCormack, Inc.

New York

None.eye-bar inc.

New York

None.


---



QuickLinks
#### Frank W. Bartlett, Respondent, v. Hunter Arms Company, Appellant.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. All concurred.
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

.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000075448
<NAME> NSTOR TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           1,120<F1>
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,855
<ALLOWANCES>                                        47
<INVENTORY>                                      7,055
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                13,417
<PP&E>                                           7,357<F2>
<DEPRECIATION>                                     653<F3>
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  20,121
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,171
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           934
<OTHER-SE>                                       9,471
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    20,121
<SALES>                                         20,527
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                20,630
<CGS>                                           14,127
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    8,804
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 111
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,412)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,412)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,412)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Cash balance includes $1,004 of restricted cash.
<F2>PP&E includes $5,259 of goodwill and other intangible assets.
<F3>Depreciation includes $312 of accumulated amortization.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
irt-ex1016_542.htm



Exhibit 10.16

Schedule of Non-Employee Director Compensation
(as revised, effective January 1, 2020)

1.Annual Retainer:

a.$45,000 cash.

b.$75,000 in common stock.

2.Lead Independent Director and Annual Committee Chair Fees:

a.Lead Independent Director Fee - $20,000.

b.Audit Committee Chair - $20,000.

c.Compensation Committee Chair - $15,000.

d.Nominating and Governance Committee Chair - $10,000

3.Annual Committee Member (other than Chair) Fees:

a.Audit Committee - $7,500.

b.Compensation Committee - $5,000.

c.Nominating and Governance Committee - $5,000.
Second Department,

January, 1909.

#### Marie Gaebler, as Administratrix, etc., of Charles G. Gaebler, Deceased, Respondent, v. The Brooklyn Heights Railroad Company, Appellant.

*Railroad*— *negligence*— *evidencé*— *credibility of witnesses.*

Appeal by the defendant, The Brooklyn Heights Railroad Company, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Queens on the 2oth day of November, 1907, upon tor verdict of a jury for §9,875, and also from an order entered in said clerk’i of ice *882on the 9th day of December, 1907, denying the defendant’s motion for a new trial made upon the minutes.

Gaynor, J.:

Two witnesses testified to being present together at the station where the accident happened, that no one else was there, and that they saw the deceased killed by the starting of the train while, he was getting aboard. A doctor was on the following train, which seems to have come along in a few minutes, and he got off at the station. I-Ie testified for the defendant without objection that two of the men who were there told him that they saw the deceased try to get on the train after it had started, and fall under the car. He was then asked who they were, and said he could not identify them or tell who they were. The testimony was hearsay and would have been excluded if objected to; or when the witness answered that he could not identify them it •should have been struck out on the plaintiff’s motion, for Some persons could have seen the accident from a distance, instead of being right there at the station with the said two witnesses. Instead, the motion was denied. The learned trial Judge reconsidered the matter and afterwards struck the testimony out. This was an everyday occurrence and entirely proper. The history of how it was done and of all that was said in the doing of it, is pointless. The grave thing is the credibility of the two eye-witnesses of the plaintiff, for several witnesses-—.'three employees of the defendant and two policemen — testified that they told'them that the deceased ran after the train and tried to get on it after it had started, but this court can scarcely reverse on that ground; the case is not clear enough The judgment should be affirmed. Present — Woodward, Gaynor, Rich and Hiller, JJ. Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs.
<PAGE>


                                  EXHIBIT 10.3


                                 FIRST AMENDMENT


                  This First Amendment is made and entered into this 28th day of
December 1998 by and between the MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, a
corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts and having its principal office at 77 Massachusetts Avenue,
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139, U.S.A. ("M.I.T.") and SOLIGEN TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
a corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of Wyoming and having
its principal office at 19408 Londelius Street, Northridge, California 91324
U.S.A. ("LICENSEE").
         WHEREAS, M.I.T. and LICENSEE entered into a License Agreement on
October 18, 1991 (the "Prior Agreement");
         WHEREAS, M.I.T. and LICENSEE Amended the Restated the Prior Agreement
as amended on August 8, 1996 ("8/3/96 License Agreement");
         WHEREAS, M.I.T. and LICENSEE wish to correct for an accounting error
related to waiver of royalties due under the 8/3/96 License Agreement and the
Prior Agreement.

NOW, THEREFORE in consideration of the premises and the mutual covenants
containing herein, the parties hereto agree as follows:

1.       Section 4.1(a) and (b) are deleted and replaced with the following:

         4.1(a). Running Royalties in an amount equal to Four and One Half
         Percent (4.5%) of Net Sales of the LICENSED PRODUCTS, metal
         END-PRODUCTS, and LICENSES PROCESSES used, leased or sold by and/or for
         LICENSEE; provided however that during the period commencing January 1,
         1997 and terminating on December 15, 1999, M.I.T. shall waive the first
         One Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($150,000) of Running Royalties due
         pursuant to this Paragraph.

2.       Section 4.1(c) is re-designated 4.1(b).


                                  Page 1 of 2

<PAGE>


3.       A new Section 4.1(c) shall be added as follows:

         4.1(c). Beginning with calendar 2000 and in each year thereafter, if
         LICENSEE shall not have paid M.I.T. at least Fifty Thousand Dollars
         ($50,000) in royalty payments pursuant to Section 4.1(a) and/or 4.1(b),
         then LICENSEE shall, within 30 days of the end of the calendar year,
         pay to M.I.T. the difference between Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000)
         and the amount paid to M.I.T. pursuant to Section 4.1(a) and/or 4.1(b)
         during the preceding year.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have duly executed the Agreement the day and
year set forth below


MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF                    SOLIGEN TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
TECHNOLOGY

By:      /s/ John H. Turner Jr.               By:     /s/ Yehoram Uziel
Name:    John H. Turner Jr.                   Name:   Yehoram Uziel
Title:   Assistant Director                   Title:  CEO
         Technology Licensing Office
Date:    December 22, 1998                    Date:   December 28, 1998


                                  Page 2 of 2
#### Anatole SERPAS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. DEMOCRATIC PARISH COMMITTEE OF ST. BERNARD PARISH et al., Defendants and Appellees.

No. 16301.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

Dec. 5, 1935.

J. Bernard Cocke and Bertrand I. Cahn, both of New Orleans, for appellants.

Lawrence W. Bergeron and John R. Perez, both of New Orleans, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

It is conceded by counsel that the issues presented here cannot be distinguished from those which confronted the Supreme Court in the matter entitled Paul Adolph Brown v. Democratic Parish Committee of St. Bernard Parish et al., 165 So. 167, and in various other cases decided by the Supreme Court in the same opinion and decree rendered in the Brown Case on December 3, 1935.

For the reasons assigned by the Supreme Court in that case, it is ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the judgment appealed from be affirmed.

Affirmed.
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 OshKosh B'Gosh, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended July 3, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Douglas W. Hyde, Chief Executive 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 to the best of my knowledge:

(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/ DOUGLAS W. HYDE    
|-----------------------
|                       
|Douglas W. Hyde        
|Chief Executive Officer
|July 23, 2004          



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document 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 OshKosh B'Gosh, Inc. and will be retained by OshKosh B'Gosh, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
exhibti_4-9.htm










Exhibit 4.9


 


English Summary of the Line of Credit Agreement, dated January 6, 2013, between Greenstone Industries Ltd. (the “Greenstone”), as lender, and R.V.B. Holdings Ltd. (the “Company”), as borrower.


 


Term of the Agreement: The Agreement shall be effective as of November 26, 2013, and shall end upon full repayment of the Loan.


 


Loan Amount: Greenstone shall provide the Company with a credit line in the amount of NIS 1 million (the “Loan”). Each withdrawal by the Company shall be in the amount of up to NIS 200 thousand. Greenstone may refuse at any time and upon its sole discretion to approve such withdrawal.


 


Interest and Linkage: The Loan will bear no interest and will be linked to the Israeli Consumer Price Index.


 


Repayment: The Loan shall be repaid in full in one payment following six months from the effective date of the Agreement. The Company is entitled at any stage to early repayment of the Loan without any early repayment fee.


 


Immediate Repayment: Greenstone may be entitled, upon its sole discretion, to call for an immediate repayment of the Loan upon the following:


 



	
  

	
1.

	
A breach by the Company of its obligations under the Agreement and/or if any of its declarations under the Agreement shall be deemed to be not true.







 



	
  

	
2.

	
In case a liquidation order has been issued against the Company or that the Company’s name has been deleted from any registry conducted by law, and these where not canceled within 30 days.







 



	
  

	
3.

	
If a request to appoint a receiver or a special manager for the Company or for the Company’s assets or a substantial part of its assets was filed and was not canceled within 30 days, or if a receiver shall be appointed or a receivership order was issued and was not cancelled within 30 days, or if a trustee or a special manager is appointed for the Company or its assets.







 



	
  

	
4.

	
If an attachment is imposed or a similar execution action has been filed against material assets of the Company or against a security granted to Greenstone by the Company and such actions were not canceled within 30 days.







 



	
  

	
5.

	
If a stay of proceeding or creditor settlement requests were filed for the Company and not canceled within 30 days, or if a stay of proceeding or a creditor settlement order were issued.







 



	
  

	
6.

	
If the Company shall be liquidated or dissolved for any reason.







 



	
  

	
7.

	
If the Company fails to repay material debts to others or if such debts shall be called for immediate repayment.







 



	
  

	
8.

	
If legal actions shall be taken against the Company and Greenstone shall determine that such actions may jeopardize the Company’s ability to repay the Loans.
[No. 28902.

Department One.

March 3, 1943.]

#### Phil G. Warnock, *Appellant,*v. The Town of Marysville *et al., Respondents.*
      *1*

C. W. *Jordan*and *Phil G. Warnock,*for appellant.

*A. E. Dailey,*for respondents.

Reported in 134 P. (2d) 710.

Per Curiam.-

-This case is companion to the case of *State ex rel. Cooper v. Warnock,*No. 28903, *ante*p. 697, wherein the facts are fully stated and the law pertaining thereto discussed at length. Upon the authority of that case, the judgment of the trial court in this action is affirmed.
#### NORTON et al. v. CRESCENT CITY ICE MFG. CO., Inc.

No. 13938.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

April 10, 1933.

PER CURIAM.

In our original opinion we expressed the view that plaintiffs, when they refused to amend their petition so as to include therein their respective direct claims, were justified in their refusal by reason of the fact that the jurisprudence of the state, as it existed at that time, gave them the right to believe that the various claims resulting from death by wrongful act might be asserted separately, and that it was only by the decree of the Supreme Court in Reed v. Warren, 172 La. 1082, 136 So. 59, that the contrary view was definitely adopted.

On reconsideration of the matter, we are fortified in our original opinion that prior to the decision in Reed v. Warren, supra, the jurisprudence rather favored the view that the various claims might be asserted separately. We find, in addition to the views set forth in the cases cited in our original opinion, that the Supreme Court in Robideaux v. Hebert, 118 La. 1089, 43 So. 887, 889, 12 L. R. A. (N. S.) 632, said:

> “We can discover no reason why plaintiffs should go out of court because the minor children of the first marriage have not been joined with them. This is not a suit, it may be remarked, upon any right of action which the decedent might have had at the moment of his death (though we do not mean to say that it would make any difference if it were). It is brought by plaintiffs in their own right, under Act No. 71, p. 94, of 1884, amending Civ. Code, art. 2315, and conferring upon the widow and minor children of one who has lost his life through the fault of another the right to recover from such other the damages sustained by them, or either ’ of them; and whilst, no doubt, in such ease, all the beneficiaries may join in the same suit, and it may be desirable that they should, they are not obliged to do so, and the failure or refusal of one of them to act cannot preclude the others.”

The rehearing applied for is refused.

Rehearing refused.
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 Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [TA-W-63,816]

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on August 5, 2008 in response to a worker petition filed by workers on behalf of workers of CPU2, LLC, Arden, North Carolina.

The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

Signed at Washington, DC this 7th day of August 2008.

Linda G. Poole,

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. E8-19187 Filed 8-18-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P