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

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 20-0604

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

PRESTON CSOO ROSSBACH,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for leave to file an overlength 

brief, and good cause appearing therefor,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellee is granted leave to file a response 

brief of not more than 17,200 words. 

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

January 5 2024

01/05/2024

Case Number: DA 20-0604
exv10w1



 






Exhibit 10.1




AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE

NOBLE ENERGY, INC.

NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR FEE DEFERRAL PLAN




     THIS AMENDMENT, made and executed by Noble Energy, Inc. (the “Company”) at Houston, Texas, to
be effective as of January 1, 2005,



WITNESSETH THAT:




     WHEREAS, the Company has heretofore established the Noble Energy, Inc. Non-Employee Director
Fee Deferral Plan (the “Plan”) for the benefit of the non-employee directors of the Company; and



     WHEREAS, the Company now desires to amend the Plan to separate the portion of the Plan
applicable to Director Fees deferred for Plan Years commencing prior to January 1, 2005, from the
portion of the Plan applicable to Director Fees deferred for Plan Years commencing after December
31, 2004, and to make certain other changes;



     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and pursuant to the provisions of Section 5
of the Plan, the Plan is hereby amended (i) to separate the portion of the Plan applicable to
Director Fees deferred for Plan Years commencing after December 31, 2004, into a separate and
distinct plan to be known as the 2005 Noble Energy, Inc. Non-Employee Director Fee Deferral Plan
and to be governed by the plan document attached hereto as Exhibit A, and (ii) to make the
following changes with respect to the portion of the Plan applicable to Director Fees deferred for
Plan Years commencing prior to January 1, 2005 (which portion shall continue to be evidenced by the
plan document known as the Noble Energy, Inc. Non-Employee Director Fee Deferral Plan):



     FIRST: Section 2(m) of the Plan is hereby amended by restatement in its entirety to
read as follows:




     (m) “Plan Year” means (i) the twelve-month period commencing on May 1, 2004, and
ending April 30, 2005, (ii) the eight-month period commencing on May 1, 2005, and ending on
December 31, 2005, and (iii) the twelve-month period commencing on January 1 of each
calendar year after 2005.



     SECOND: Section 4 of the Plan is hereby amended to add a new subsection (f) at the
end thereof to read as follows:




     (f) Cessation of Deferral Elections. Any provision of this Plan to the
contrary notwithstanding, (i) the Director Fees payable to a Non-Employee Director for his
or her services to be performed after December 31, 2004, shall be deferred pursuant to and
governed by the provisions of the Noble Energy, Inc. 2005 Non-Employee Director Fee
Deferral Plan made effective as of January 1, 2005, and (ii) no Director Fees payable to a
Non-Employee Director for his or her services to be performed after December 31, 2004,
shall be deferred pursuant to this Plan.



 









 





     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Amendment on this ___day of , 2005, to
be effective as of January 1, 2005.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	NOBLE ENERGY, INC.

 	 
	 	By:  	 	 
	 	 	Title: 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 




-2-
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                         380,302
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  790,159
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,631,251
<PP&E>                                       4,732,269
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,299,482
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,983,788
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,851,207
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                       241,945
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  3,518,694
<OTHER-SE>                                  (5,283,477)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,983,788
<SALES>                                      4,706,869
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,706,869
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,239,638
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,601,784
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             397,986
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                452,097
<INCOME-TAX>                                   190,000 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            262,097
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   262,097
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .00 
        

</TABLE>
IIB 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4012

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 19, 2004

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs 

AN ACT

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

HR 4012 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. 5-YEAR REAUTHORIZATION OF TUITION ASSIST2 ANCE PROGRAMS. 

3 (a) PUBLIC SCHOOL PROGRAM.—Section 3(i) of the 

4 District of Columbia College Access Act of 1999 (sec. 

5 38—2702(i), D.C. Official Code) is amended by striking 

6 ‘‘each of the five succeeding fiscal years’’ and inserting 

7 ‘‘each of the 10 succeeding fiscal years’’. 

8 (b) PRIVATE SCHOOL PROGRAM.—Section 5(f) of 

9 such Act (sec. 38—2704(f), D.C. Official Code) is amend10 ed by striking ‘‘each of the five succeeding fiscal years’’ 

11 and inserting ‘‘each of the 10 succeeding fiscal years’’.

Passed the House of Representatives July 14, 2004. 

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL, 

Clerk.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DON RAY THOMPSON, :

Petitioner, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION NO. 09-0611-WS

UNITED STATES OF : CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 08-0069-WS

AMERICA,

:

Respondent.

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of all portions of this file deemed

relevant to the issues raised, and there having been no objections filed, the

recommendation of the Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)

and dated March 18, 2010 is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court.

DONE this 21st day of April, 2010.

s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:08-cr-00069-WS-B Document 84 Filed 04/22/10 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 99.1


                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


I, Daniel P. Beharry, Chief Executive Officer of Mera Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the
"Registrant"), do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

            (1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Registrant, to which
this certification is attached as an exhibit (the "Report"), fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15
U.S.C. 78m); and

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

Dated: 9/10/03
      -----------------

                                                /s/DANIEL P. BEHARRY
                                                -----------------------
                                                Daniel P. Beharry
                                                Chief Executive Officer



                                       23

<PAGE>
Exhibit 32.2



Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss.1350



In connection with the filing with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission of BBJ Environmental Technologies,
Inc.s (the Company) Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2004 (the Report), I, Robert Baker, the Interim Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify in my capacity as an officer of
the Company, that:



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



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



The above certification is given as of the date of the Report and is limited to the periods covered by the Report.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Certificate on August
20, 2004.



By:

/s/ Robert G. BakerRobert G. Baker,Interim Chief Financial Officer




A signed original or 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 of its staff upon request.
No. 15,879.

#### Keadle, Administrator, *v.*Siddens.

Appellate *Court.*— Jurisdiction *of.*— Actual *Amount in Controversy Determines.*— In a suit for the recovery of money only, when an examination and comparison of the several paragraphs of complaint make it apparent that the cause of action stated or attempted to be stated in each grows out of the same transaction, and that the actual amount in controversy is three hundred dollars instead of twelve hundred dollars, the *prima facie*amount in controversy, the jurisdiction of the cause is in the Appellate Court.

From the Benton Circuit Court.

*A. Rice*and *W. S. Potter,*for appellant.

*M. H. Walker*and *G. H. Gray,*for appellee.

McBride, J.

The only question presented by the record in this case arises on a ruling of the court below, sustaining a demurrer to the complaint. The consideration of this question, however, raises a preliminary question of jurisdiction, and requires us to determine whether this court or the Appellate Court has jurisdiction of the appeal.

The suit is for the recovery of money only. The complaint is in four paragraphs. The demand in each paragraph is for $300.

*Prima faeie,*the amount in controversy is $1,200. This would place the jurisdiction in this court. The amount in controversy, however, must be determined from the entire record, and from the material parts of the plea'dings, and not from the formal demand for judgment. *Ex parte Sweeney,*126 Ind. 583-588, and cases cited; Elliott’s Appellate Pro-1 cedure, section 56. An examination and comparison of the several paragraphs of complaint make it apparent that the cause of action stated, or attempted to be stated, in each grows out of the same transaction, and is substantially the same in all. The actual amount in controversy, therefore, is only $300. The jurisdiction of the cause is in the Appel*598late Court, and the clerk is directed to transfer it to the docket of that court.

Filed May 17, 1892.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 31.2

                                 CERTIFICATIONS

Certification of Principal Financial and Accounting Officer

I, Rose Frawert, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Mid-State Raceway, Inc.
and Subsidiary;

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this annual report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this annual
report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c) presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):

a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's
auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
annual report whether there were significant changes in internal controls or in
other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to
the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: January 10, 2004

/s/ Rose Frawert
Rose Frawert
Principal Financial and Accounting Officer

                                                                              49
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1
 
                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS
 
     We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption "Experts" and to
the use of our report dated February 18, 1998 (except for Note 15, as to which
the date is July 10, 1998), in Amendment No. 4 to the Registration Statement
(Form S-1 No. 333-56799) and related Prospectus of Clark/Bardes, Inc. (the
predecessor company to Clark/Bardes Holdings, Inc.) for the registration of
shares of its common stock.
 
                                                  /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP
                                            ------------------------------------
                                                     ERNST & YOUNG LLP
 
Dallas, Texas
August 17, 1998
exv10w6



 






Exhibit 10.6




AMENDMENT TO

AMENDED AND RESTATED

GAMESTOP CORP.

(N/K/A GAMESTOP HOLDINGS CORP.)

2001 INCENTIVE PLAN




     The first sentence of Section 1.1 of the Amended and Restated GameStop Corp. (n/k/a GameStop
Holdings Corp.) 2001 Incentive Plan is hereby deleted and replaced in its entirety by the
following:



          “The purpose of the Plan is to assist the Company or any parent, subsidiary or affiliate of
the Company in attracting and retaining selected individuals to serve as directors, officers,
consultants, advisors, and employees of the Company or any parent, subsidiary or affiliate of the
Company who will contribute to the Company’s success and to achieve long-term objectives which will
inure to the benefit of all shareholders of the Company through the additional incentive inherent
in the ownership of Class A Common Stock, par value $.001 per share, of GameStop Corp. (f/k/a GSC
Holdings Corp.) (the “Shares”).”
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1999
<CASH>                                          19,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,472,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                    50,000
<INVENTORY>                                    167,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,767,000
<PP&E>                                      10,879,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,831,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,165,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,926,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       137,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,337,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,165,000
<SALES>                                      9,119,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             9,119,000
<CGS>                                        6,273,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,039,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (13,000)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             346,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                474,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                    12,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            462,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   462,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .16


</TABLE>
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 20

- 00274

- CR

Sean Eric Griffin v. The State of Texas

On Appeal from the 36th District Court of San Patricio County , Texas Trial Cause No. S

- 19

- 3408CR

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered thi s cause on appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal
DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion

. We further order this decision certified below for observance. December 17, 2020
108TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4620

AN ACT

To confirm the authority of the Secretary of Agriceeds of marketing assistance loans. sessments on behalf of the State from the pro- culture to collect approved State commodity as-

108TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4620

AN ACT

To confirm the authority of the Secretary of Agriculture

to collect approved State commodity assessments on behalf of the State from the proceeds of marketing assistance loans.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 4620 EH

1 SECTION 1. CONFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF SECRETARY

2 OF AGRICULTURE TO COLLECT STATE COM3 MODITY ASSESSMENTS.

4 (a) COLLECTION FROM MARKETING ASSISTANCE

5 LOANS.—The Secretary of Agriculture may collect com6 modity assessments from the proceeds of a marketing as7 sistance loan for a producer if the assessment is required

8 to be paid by the producer or the first purchaser of a com9 modity pursuant to a State law or pursuant to an author10 ity administered by the Secretary. This collection author11 ity does not extend to a State tax or other revenue collec12 tion activity by a State.

13 (b) COLLECTION PURSUANT TO AGREEMENT.—The

14 collection of an assessment under subsection (a) shall be

15 made as specified in an agreement between the Secretary

16 of Agriculture and the State requesting the collection.

Passed the House of Representatives October 5,

2004.

Attest:

Clerk.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial informaton extracted from the
consolidated condensed financial statements for the nine-months ended February
28, 1998 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-28-1998
<CASH>                                       2,048,517
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  815,277
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    789,273
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,903,512
<PP&E>                                         690,139
<DEPRECIATION>                               (398,401)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,053,888
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,104,171
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        615
<COMMON>                                        48,374
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,422,728
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,053,888
<SALES>                                      3,855,311
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,855,311
<CGS>                                        1,063,367
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,063,367
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             5,597,949
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,546
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,734,210)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,734,210)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,734,210)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.08)
        

</TABLE>
#### Jno. W. Allen *v.*C. H. Burks.

Judgment — Place of Payment.

The fact that the payment in satisfaction of a judgment was made in.another county from that in which the judgment was rendered, cannot alter the effect of the payment, since an execution might have been sent to any county in the state.

APPEAL FROM BARREN CIRCUIT COURT.

January 16, 1874.

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay:

The release in this case does not come within the rule stated in the case *of J. H. Arnold v. O. P. Park,*8 Bush 3. There the debt was paid by the delivery of property, in lieu of money, an arrangement that the creditor could only make with the consent of the debtor. Here the payment was made in money, just what appellee was entitled to receive under and by virtue of this payment.

It does not matter that it was made in a county different from that in which the judgment was rendered, as execution might have been sent to any county in the state. It may be that the party from whom the money was borrowed loaned it upon the agreement of *445appellee to release the balance of his debt; but if this be the fact it is neither pleaded nor proved. Nothing* that can be tortured into a consideration for the release is developed by the record.

*Garnett & Delaney, for appellant.*

*W. Beard, for appellee.*

The judgment must therefore be affirmed.
#### Hazzard et al. *v.*Southwick.

APPEAL-from the Henry Circuit Court.

*M. E. Forkner*and *E. H. Bundy,*for appellants.

*y. Brown*and *R. L. Polk,*for appellee.

'Worden, J.

This cause is essentially like that of *Haz:zctrd*v. *Heacock, ante,*p. 172, was submitted on the same briefs, and must be decided in the same way. The judgment below is reversed, with costs.