alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Televisa Letter Agreement, dated as of October 8, 2004



 EXHIBIT 10.9 
  
 The DIRECTV Group, Inc. 
 200 North Sepulveda Boulevard 
 El Segundo, CA 90245 
  
 October 8, 2004 
  
 Grupo Televisa, S.A. 
 Avenida Vasco de Quiroga 2000 
 Edificio A, Cuarto Piso 
 Colonia Santa Fe Zedec 
 02120 Mexico, D.F. 
 Attention: Juan S. Mijares Ortega, General Counsel

  
 Re: Purchase of Certain Liberty
Interests 
  
 Dear Sirs: 
  
 This letter confirms our understanding and agreement in respect of the
Liberty Media Latin America Purchase Agreement, dated as of October 8, 2004 (the “Purchase Agreement”), by and between Liberty Media International, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Liberty”), and The
DIRECTV Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“DIRECTV”). A copy of the Purchase Agreement has been provided to Televisa separate from this letter agreement. 
  
 The Purchase Agreement provides, inter alia, for the purchase by DIRECTV or its designee(s), and the sale by Liberty
and certain of its affiliates, of Liberty’s indirect interests in certain Latin American partnerships and joint ventures engaged in the business of developing and distributing television, audio and related entertainment programming services
through direct-to-home satellite transmission, including Innova Holdings, S. de R.L. de C.V., a Mexico limited liability company with variable capital (“Innova Holdings”), and Innova, S. de R.L. de C.V., a Mexico limited
liability company with variable capital (“Innova” and, together with Innova Holdings, the “Innova Businesses”). 
  

Televisa has indicated its desire to purchase 2/3rds of Liberty’s indirect interests in each of the Innova Businesses, on the terms and conditions
set forth in the Purchase Agreement. 
  
 This letter confirms our
agreement that upon the consummation of DIRECTV’s acquisition of Liberty’s indirect interests in the Innova Businesses, Televisa may purchase 2/3rds of such interest in consideration for payment of 2/3rds of the purchase price and
otherwise on the terms and conditions set forth in the Purchase Agreement (including the benefit of any representations, warranties and covenants made by Liberty and its affiliates with respect to such interests). DIRECTV and Televisa shall
cooperate in good faith at the time of the closing to agree on the manner in which the transaction contemplated in this letter will be carried out to their mutual satisfaction and to enter into mutually agreed upon documentation to effect the
foregoing. 







 Please confirm that the foregoing accurately reflects your understanding of our agreement with respect to
these matters by executing this letter where indicated below. 
  

			
	 Very truly yours,

	
	 The DIRECTV Group, Inc.

		
	 By:
	 	 /s/ Bruce B. Churchill


	 Name:
	 	 Bruce B. Churchill

	 Title:
	 	 Executive Vice President & Chief Financial Officer




			
	 
	 Acknowledged and Agreed.

	
	 Grupo Televisa, S.A.

		
	 By:
	 	 /s/ Juan Mijares and Azucena Dominguez


	 Name:
	 	 Juan Mijares and Azucena Dominguez

	 Title:
	 	 Attorneys-in-Fact
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-72756 of Dynacq Healthcare, Inc. of our report datedNovember 4, 2005 with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Dynacq Healthcare, Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended August 31, 2005. 

 

/s/ Killman, Murrell & Company, P.C. 

 

Killman, Murrell & Company, P.C. 

Houston, Texas 

November 16, 2005
# United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 23-3223

___________________________ James A. Daly lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v. City of DeSoto, Missouri; Jeff McCreary lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis

____________ Submitted: June 24, 2024 Filed: June 27, 2024 [Unpublished]

____________ Before LOKEN, GRUENDER, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM. James Daly appeals following the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment on his claims against his former employer, the City of DeSoto (the City),

1 The Honorable John A. Ross, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.alleging that he was retaliated against during his time as a sergeant with the City’s

police department, which ultimately culminated in his termination. Upon careful review, we conclude that summary judgment was proper. See Henry v. Johnson, 950 F.3d 1005, 1010 (8th Cir. 2020) (standard of review). As to the state-law retaliation claim, we agree with the district court that “the record lacks any instance or accumulation of events targeting Daly that a reasonable person objectively would consider so abusive or severe as to constitute an actionable hostile work environment.” See Watson v. Heartland Health Labs., Inc., 790 F.3d 856, 864 (8th Cir. 2015); Thorn v. Amalgamated Transit Union, 305 F.3d 826, 831 (8th Cir. 2002). As to the First Amendment retaliation claim, we agree with the district court that Daly’s termination was justified under the balancing test set out in Pickering v. Bd. of Educ., 391 U.S. 563 (1968), particularly as the City provided sufficient evidence that Daly’s speech disrupted the City’s operations. See Noon v. City of Platte Woods, 94 F.4th 759, 764 (8th Cir. 2024); Henry, 950 F.3d at 1012; Anzaldua v. Northeast Ambulance & Fire Prot. Dist., 793 F.3d 822, 835 (8th Cir. 2015). To the extent Daly also raised these claims against the chief of police in his official capacity, we conclude that the district court did not err in dismissing such claims as redundant. See King v. City of Crestwood, 899 F.3d 643, 650 (8th Cir. 2018); Rumery v. Outboard Marine Corp., 172 F.3d 531, 535 (8th Cir. 1999). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE INTERIM
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1997 AND
THE CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF MARCH 31, 1997, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                       2,197,551
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  336,380
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                      22,871,003
<DEPRECIATION>                             (2,394,535)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              23,456,997
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                      3,515,310
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  19,752,579
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                23,456,997
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               927,499
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   98,136
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              94,118
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                636,978
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            636,978
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   636,978
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
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 QuantRx  Biomedical  Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Walter
Witoshkin,  Chief  Executive  Officer of the  Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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 Company.


                                                  /s/ Walter Witoshkin
                                                  ------------------------------
                                                  Walter Witoshkin,
                                                  Chief Executive Officer

Date: May 15, 2006

A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Order entered March 15, 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 18
- 01388
- CV
TIM SIEGEL , ET AL. , Appellant s

V. GALG, LLC D/B/A GOOD SON GOLF & UTILITY C ARS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 162nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC
- 18
- 17245



### O RDER Before the Court is appellants’ March 13, 2019 second motion for extension of time to
file their principal brief. We GRANT the motion and exten d the time to April 18, 2019 . We caution appellants that further extension requests will be disfavored absent compelling
circumstances.

/s/ BILL WHITEHILL JUSTICE
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Mazin Assi, Appellant.

Submitted November 9, 2009;

decided November 19, 2009

Reported below, 63 AD3d 19.

Motion by Anti-Defamation League for leave to file a brief amicus curiae on the appeal herein granted and the proposed brief is accepted as filed. Two copies of the brief must be served and 24 copies filed within seven days.
Exhibit
      32.1
 
 Form
      10-QSB
 Arête
      Industries,
      Inc.
 Quarter
      ended June
      30, 2006
 
 
 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 Arête Industries, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB
      for the period ending June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Charles L. Gamber, 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:
 
 (1)
      The Report
      fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 (2)
      The information
      contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
      condition and result of operations of the Company.
 
 
 Dated:
              August
              22, 2006
            By:
            /s/
              Charles L.
              GamberCharles
              L.Gamber, Chief Executive
              Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Dammon Nelson, Appellant.

[973 NYS2d 80]

An appeal having been taken to this Court by the above-named appellant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Renee A. White, J.), rendered on or about February 28, 2012, said appeal having been argued by counsel for the respective parties, due deliberation having been had thereon, and finding the sentence not excessive, it is unanimously ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same is hereby affirmed. Concur— Andrias, J.E, Sweeny, Acosta, Saxe and Clark, JJ.
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-19-00291-CR

RAFAEL VILLARD, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

§

§

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from

Criminal District Court No. 3

of Tarrant County (1474527D)

September 26, 2019

Opinion by Justice Kerr

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that the 

appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed for want of 

jurisdiction.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By _/s/ Elizabeth Kerr__________________

 Justice Elizabeth Kerr
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 Health and Human Services

###### Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

      ( print page 24021)    
In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announce the aforementioned meeting.

*Time and Date:*                     12:30 p.m.-4:30 p.m., June 11, 2009 (Closed).                

*Place:*                     Teleconference.                

*Status:*                     The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with provisions set forth in Sections 552b(c)(4) and (6), Title 5 U.S.C., and the Determination of the Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, CDC, pursuant to Public Law 92-463.                

*Matters to be Discussed:*                     The meeting will include the initial review, discussion, and evaluation of applications received in response to “CDC Grants for Public Health Research Dissertation, Panel H, FOA PAR07-231.”                

*Contact Person for more Information:*                     Maurine F. Goodman, M.A., M.P.H., Scientific Review Officer, Office of the Director, Office of the Chief Science Officer, CDC, 1600 Clifton Road, NE., Mailstop D72, Atlanta, GA 30333, Telephone: (404) 639-4737.                

                    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign                     **Federal Register**                     notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both CDC and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.                

Dated: May 14, 2009.

Elaine L. Baker,

Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

[FR Doc. E9-12001 Filed 5-21-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
#### In re B.M.

Case below: 186 N.C. App. — (2 October 2007)

No. 509P07

Petitioner’s Motion for Temporary Stay (COA07-525)

Allowed 10/16/07
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed August 17, 2022.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D22-0998

Lower Tribunal No. F95-29230

________________

Wilfredo A. Zelaya,

Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida,

Appellee.

An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from 

the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Laura Anne Stuzin, Judge.

Wilfredo A. Zelaya, in proper person.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before EMAS, LINDSEY, and BOKOR, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"National Intelligence University","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.ni-u.edu","author_name":"ray.x.villarreal@odni.gov","author_url":"https:\/\/www.ni-u.edu\/author\/ray-x-villarrealodni-gov\/","title":"NIU Opens Innovative, Unclassified Research Lab","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"sJ4nUzSiRT\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.ni-u.edu\/niu-opens-innovative-unclassified-research-lab\/\">NIU Opens Innovative, Unclassified Research Lab<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.ni-u.edu\/niu-opens-innovative-unclassified-research-lab\/embed\/#?secret=sJ4nUzSiRT\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NIU Opens Innovative, Unclassified Research Lab” — National Intelligence University\" data-secret=\"sJ4nUzSiRT\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-10516 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus MICHAEL HICKMON, also known as Slizzard, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:97-CR-373

- - - - - - - - - - October 20, 1999 Before JONES, WIENER, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Michael Hickmon’s court-appointed appellate attorneys have moved to withdraw as counsel and have filed a brief as required by Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Hickmon has received a copy of counsels’ motion and brief but has not filed a response. Our independent review of the brief and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, counsels’ motion to withdraw is GRANTED. Counsel is excused from furtherNo. -2- responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 13 (Thursday, January 22, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 4068]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-1210]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration <greek-i>11430 and <greek-i>11431]


Texas Disaster Number TX-00308

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Amendment 5.

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

SUMMARY: This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a 
major disaster for the State of Texas (FEMA-1791-DR), dated 09/13/2008.
    Incident: Hurricane Ike.
    Incident Period: 09/07/2008 through 10/02/2008.
    Effective Date: 01/06/2009.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 02/06/2009.
    EIDL Loan Application Deadline Date: 06/15/2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., 
Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of the President's major disaster 
declaration for the State of TEXAS, dated 09/13/2008 is hereby amended 
to extend the deadline for filing applications for physical damages as 
a result of this disaster to 02/06/2009.
    All other information in the original declaration remains 
unchanged.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008)

Herbert L. Mitchell,
Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-1210 Filed 1-21-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
#### In the Matter of Derek DeMeo, Appellant, v City of Albany et al., Respondents, and Phlip ’N Spill, Inc., Doing Business as The Bayou Café, Respondent.

Submitted June 28, 2010;

decided September 14, 2010

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution.