alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT        10(c)**

----

----

----

|   | (e) | “Committee”                  shall mean the Compensation Committee of the                  Board. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (f) | “Common                  Stock”                  shall mean the common stock, no par value, of the                  Company. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

** **

----

----

----

----

** **

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

| (c)                 | To                encourage teamwork and cooperation in the achievement of Company                goals. |
|-------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----

----

----

----

----
Filed 1/10/14 P. v. Quiroz CA2/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

CYNTHIA H ERRERA QUIROZ,

Defendant and Appellant. B250556

(Los Angeles County Super. Ct.

No. SA082497)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Katherine

Mader, Judge. Affirmed.

Richard L. Fitzer, under appoin tment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and

Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

______________________________2

Following the denial of her motion to suppress evidence under Penal Code section

1538.5, defendant and appellant Cynt hia Herrera Quiroz entered a plea of no contest to

misdemeanor possession of marijuana in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11357,

subdivision (c). Defendant was placed on summary probation for a period of 24 months. She

filed a timely notice o f appeal, challenging the ruling on the motion to suppress evidence.

This court appointed counsel for defendant. Appointed counsel filed a brief raising no

issues but requested this court to independently review the record for arguable contentions

pursua nt to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Defendant was advised by letter from this

court dated November 4, 2013, of her right to file a supplementa l brief within 30 days. The

30

- day period has lapsed and no brief has been received.

We have completed our independent review of the record and find no arguable appellate

contentions. The trial court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress the marijuana

which formed the basis for the prosecution. An officer observed defendant driving a vehicle

conn ected to a ticket that had gone to warrant. Defendant’s driving privilege had been

suspended. Because the other three occupants of the vehicle were unlicensed, and leaving the

vehicle at the location of the stop would have impeded traffic, a decision was made to impound

the car. Marijuana was discovered in a woman’s tote bag in the trunk of the car during an

inventory search of the vehicle conducted as part of the impound process. The seizure of the

marijuana during the inventory search was lawful. ( So uth Dakota v. Opperman (1976) 428

U.S. 364 [standard police practice of searching the inventory of a car as part of the impound

process is not unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment].)

The judgment is affirmed. ( Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259.)

KRIEGLER, J.

We concur:

TURNER, P. J. MOSK , J.
#### VIDRINE v. SOILEAU et al.

No. 2956.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

Dec. 30, 1947.

Robt. F. Dejean, of Opelousas, for appellant.

E. Herman Guillory, of Ville Platte, for appellees.

LE BLANC, Judge.

This is a suit for damages for personal injuries arising out of the act of an alleged malicious dog in having attacked and bitten plaintiff on one of his legs, above the knee, and causing a flesh wound.

Plaintiff and the defendant J. Leroy Soi-leau were both employed by the Cabot Carbon Company. Soileau is sued as the party who is alleged to have incited the dog to the attack and the Cabot Carbon Company is sued on the ground that it permitted the dog to remain on i'ts premises contrary to their regulations and policy and despite the warning it had received to keep the dog under observation because of the possibility of rabies. Judgment is prayed for against the defendant Soileau in the sum of $1300 and against Cabot Carbon Company for $700.

The defendants each filed exceptions of no cause and no right of action and the defendant Soileau also filed an exception of vagueness.

The extract from the minutes of court of December 30, 1946, shows that on that day, on motion of counsel for plaintiff, the suit was dismissed as to the defendant Cabot Carbon Company. From the extract of the minutes of court of March 20, 1947, it appears that an exception of no cause or right of action filed on behalf of the defendant, Soileau, was sustained. The effect of this ruling necessarily led to the dismissal of plaintiff’s suit.

No further action seems to have been taken by the court until April 7, 1947, on which day the minutes show that on motion made in open court, plaintiff was granted a devolutive appeal to this court, which was ¡made returnable on May 7, 1947. Bond for appeal was filed on May 3, 1947.

No mention whatever is made in the extract from the minutes of court about a judgment having been .rendered dismissing plaintiff’s suit and neither do we find any *108judgment, signed or unsigned, in the record that is before us.

The judgment rendered and signed is what forms the basis of the appeal in any case; in its absence the appeal will not lie and this rule applies to'a judgment on an exception of no cause of action which dismissed the plaintiff’s suit as well as to any other judgment decreeing likewise. See River & Rails Terminals, Inc. v. Louisiana Ry. & Nav. Co., 157 La. 1085, 103 So. 331; Crais v. City of New Orleans, 171 La. 285, 130 So. 867.

For the reasons assigned, the appeal herein is dismissed at the appellant’s costs.
##### 



Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to 18 United States Code § 1350

The undersigned hereby certifies that, to his knowledge, the Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2003 of Phelps
Dodge Corporation (the Company) filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof 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 report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

| |        |                                                
| | ------ | -----------------------------------------------
| |        | /s/ J. Steven Whisler                          
| |       
| | Name:  | J. Steven Whisler                              
| | Title: | Chairman, President and
Chief Executive Officer
| | Date:  | October 29, 2003                               

The undersigned hereby certifies that, to his knowledge, the Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2003 of Phelps
Dodge Corporation (the Company) filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof 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 report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

| |        |                                                  
| | ------ | -------------------------------------------------
| |        | /s/ Ramiro G. Peru                               
| |       
| | Name:  | Ramiro G. Peru                                   
| | Title: | Senior Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
| | Date:  | October 29, 2003
* 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

March 6, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-50775

c/w No. 06-50801

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JAMES EARL MAGERS,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 7:06-CR-46

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

Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

James Earl Magers appeals his conviction for possession of

cocaine and the consequent revocation of a term of supervised

release. Magers does not dispute that he possessed cocaine, but

he argues that the trial evidence failed to establish that 

his possession of the drug was knowing or intentional. 

In light of the evidence of contradictory and implausible

explanations offered by Magers, a rational juror could have

concluded that Magers knowingly or intentionally possessed
No. 06-50775

c/w No. 06-50801

-2-

cocaine. United States v. Lopez, 74 F.3d 575, 577 (5th Cir.

1996); United States v. Jaramillo, 42 F.3d 920, 923 (5th Cir.

1995). As the evidence supports the conviction for possession of

cocaine, the revocation of Magers’s term of supervised release

was clearly within the discretion of the district. 

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit
32.3





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)





In
connection with the Annual Report of BreitBurn Energy Partners L.P (the
“Partnership”) on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2008, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
I, James G. Jackson, Chief Financial Officer of BreitBurn GP, LLC, the general
partner of the Partnership, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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) 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
Partnership.





/s/ James G. JacksonJames
      G. JacksonChief
      Financial Officer of BreitBurn GP,
LLC





Dated:
March 17, 2010
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 684 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 684

To prohibit exports of unprocessed timber and wood chips to any country 
  that does not provide reciprocal access to its markets for finished 
         wood products and paper produced in the United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 25, 1995

  Mr. Wilson introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                  Committee on International Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To prohibit exports of unprocessed timber and wood chips to any country 
  that does not provide reciprocal access to its markets for finished 
         wood products and paper produced in the United States.

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

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON EXPORTS OF UNPROCESSED TIMBER AND WOOD CHIPS 
              TO COUNTRIES RESTRICTING ACCESS OF UNITED STATES FINISHED 
              WOOD PRODUCTS AND PAPER.

    (a) Prohibition.--No unprocessed timber or wood chips may be 
exported from the United States to any country that does not provide 
reciprocal access to its markets for finished wood products and paper 
produced in the United States.
    (b) Exercise of Authorities.--The President shall exercise the 
authorities of the Export Administration Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. 2401 et 
seq.) to carry out this section.
    (c) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
            (1) the term ``unprocessed timber'' has the meaning given 
        that term in section 493(7) of the Forest Resources 
        Conservation and Shortage Relief Act of 1990 (16 U.S.C. 
        620e(7));
            (2) the term ``finished wood products'' means wood products 
        other than unprocessed timber; and
            (3) the term ``United States'' includes any commonwealth, 
        territory, or possession of the United States.
                                 <all>
```
**EXHIBIT 12.2**SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY**COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES**(Dollars in millions)
Nine months ended
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
September 30, 2005
Fixed Charges:
Interest
 $                     72 
 $                     70 
 $                     47 
 $                     48 
 $                     40 
 $                               35 
Interest portion of annual rentals
4 
3 
2 
2 
                          2 
                                    2 
Total fixed charges for purpose of ratio
 $                     76 
 $                     73 
 $                     49 
 $                     50 
 $                     42 
 $                               37 
Earnings:
Pretax income from continuing operations
 $                  390 
 $                  377 
 $                  391 
 $                  360 
 $                  387 
 $                            219 
Add: total fixed charges (from above)
76 
73 
49 
50 
42 
37 
Total earnings for purpose of ratio
 $                  466 
 $                  450 
 $                  440 
 $                  410 
 $                  429 
 $                            256 
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges
6.13 
6.16 
8.98 
8.20 
10.21 
6.92********
#### In the Matter of Deandre T. and Another. Rockland County Department of Social Services, Appellant; Wendell T., Respondent.

[676 NYS2d 666]

In consolidated proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the petitioner appeals from (1) an order of the Family Court, Rockland County (Warren, J.), entered May 9, 1997, which, *sua sponte,*directed that the fact-finding hearing be reopened for the purpose of permitting the petitioner to present expert evidence regarding the effect of the father’s domestic violence towards the mother *498upon the emotional and mental condition of the children, and (2) an order of the same court, entered June 4, 1997, which, after the reopened fact-finding hearing, dismissed the petitions.

Ordered that the appeal from the order entered May 9, 1997, is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as the appellant is not aggrieved thereby; and it is further,

Ordered that the order entered June 4, 1997, is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the petitions are granted to the extent that the child Vanessa is found to be neglected and the child Deandre is found to be derivatively neglected, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Rock-land County, for a dispositional hearing.

The issue in this case is whether proof of a pattern of domestic violence by the father against the mother witnessed by their older child is sufficient to establish neglect under Family Court Act § 1012 absent expert evidence that such violence impaired the mental or emotional condition of the child or created an “imminent danger” of such impairment. In the order appealed from, the Family Court held that such violence alone could not be the basis of a finding of neglect and dismissed the petitions. We reverse.

Given the Legislature’s awareness of and concern for the detrimental effects of domestic violence on children, Family Court Act § 1012 (f) (i) (B) was drafted in sufficiently broad terms to encompass domestic violence as a permissible basis upon which to make a finding of neglect (see, *Matter of Lonell J.,*242 AD2d 58; *see also, Matter of Billy Jean II.,*226 AD2d 767; *Matter of Tami G.,*209 AD2d 869; *Matter of Theresa CC.,*178 AD2d 687; *Matter of Michael M.,*156 Misc 2d 98). Such a finding may be made without expert evidence (see, *Matter of Lonell J., supra; see, e.g., Matter of Tami G., supra;*Family Ct Act § 1046 [b]). Here, the evidence presented at the hearings was sufficient to prove that the father’s violent abuse of the mother in the presence of their daughter, Vanessa, resulted in impairment of the child’s mental and emotional health *(see, Matter of Lonell J., supra; Matter of Theresa CC., supra; cf., Matter of Bryan L.,*149 Misc 2d 899). Moreover, on the facts presented, a finding of derivative neglect with regard to that child’s sibling, Deandre, is warranted *(see, Matter of Dutchess County Dept. of Social Servs. [Douglas E., III] v Douglas E., Jr.,*191 AD2d 694). Accordingly, we remit the matter to the Family Court, Rockland County, for a dispositional hearing. Ritter, J. P., Santucci, Joy and Florio, JJ., concur.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

KIMBERLEY JO KONASH, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D18-2355 ) SCOTT ALLAN KONASH, ) ) Respondent. ) ___________________________________) Opinion filed October 12, 2018. Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Jennifer X. Gabbard, Judge. Kimberly Jo Konash, pro se. W. Matthew Kowtko of Kowtko Law Group, P.A., Sarasota, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Denied.
LaROSE, C.J., and KHOUZAM and SLEET, JJ., Concur.
Exhibit 32.2

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Porter
Bancorp, Inc. (the Company) for the annual period ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David B. Pierce, Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, do hereby certify, in accordance with 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), as applicable, 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                      |  |                      |  |                        
|--------------------- |  | -------------------- |  | -----------------------
|                      |  | PORTER BANCORP, INC.
|                      |  |                     
|Dated: March 26, 2009 |  | By:                  |  | /s/ David B. Pierce    
|                      |  |                      |  |                        
|                      |  |                      |  | David B. Pierce        
|                      |  |                      |  | Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 4.38

 

Share purchase agreement between Cemig GT and Vale

 

On December 19, 2013 Cemig GT and Vale S.A. signed commercial and stockholding documents for creation of the company Aliança Geração de Energia S.A. (Aliança), to be a platform for consolidation of generation assets held by the parties in generation consortia, and investments in future electricity generation projects.

 

The two parties will subscribe their shares in Aliança in the form of their holdings in the following generation assets: Porto Estrela, Igarapava, Funil, Capim Branco I and II, Aimorés, and Candonga. With these assets the new company will have installed hydroelectric generating capacity in operation of 1,158 MW (652 average MW), among other generation projects. Vale will hold 55%, and Cemig GT 45%, of the total capital of this new company.

 

The interest of Cemig GT has been valued at R$ 2.030 billion. The association increases Cemig GT’s potential to generate new business and maximize profit, due to the combination of the two companies’ experiences in operational, financial and project management.

 

Cemig GT will also acquire, for approximately R$ 206 million, 49% of the future company Aliança Norte Energia Participações S.A., which will own the 9% interest owned by Vale in Norte Energia S.A. (the Belo Monte hydroelectric plant).

 

The acquisition price, corresponding to the capital injections made by Vale up to December 31, 2013, will be paid at sight on the closing date, adjusted by the IPCA inflation index. With the acquisition Cemig GT becomes the indirect holder of a further 4.41% of Norte Energia, representing an installed generation capacity of 495.39 MW (201 average MW).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         708,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               21,683,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (339,000)
<INVENTORY>                                 18,823,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            43,037,000
<PP&E>                                     142,507,000
<DEPRECIATION>                            (46,904,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             159,555,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       17,653,000
<BONDS>                                     50,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     8,847,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  78,817,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               159,555,000
<SALES>                                     87,185,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            87,185,000
<CGS>                                       60,115,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               77,513,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               134,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           3,087,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              6,451,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,808,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          4,683,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 4,683,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.56
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.50


</TABLE>