alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## NUMBER 13

- 2 4

- 00 100

- C V

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

– EDINBURG

ATC METRO PROPERTIES, INC.
AND TIMOTHY B. TEAS

, Appellant s ,

v.

ALBERT “ AL ” AYALA

, Appellee.

ON APPEAL FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 3
OF NUECES COUNTY, TEXAS



## MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Tijerina and Peña Memorandum Opinion by Justice Peña

This matter is before the court on appellant s ’ failure to file brief s

. Appellants ’ brief s

were originally due to be filed on or before June 12 , 202 4

. On June 21, 2024, the Clerk

of the Court notified each appellant that their brief was past due. A ppellant s were further

notified that if they fail to reasonably explain the failure to file a brief within ten days from2 the date of the notice, the appeal shall be dismissed for want of prosecution. See id. T EX

.

R. A PP

. P. 42.3(b), (c).

To date, neither a ppellant has reasonably explain ed the failure to file a brief,

neither have filed a motion for extension of time to file a brief, and neither has f ile d a brief.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution

. See id. R. 38.8(a) (1)

,

42.3(b) ,(c)

.

L. ARON PEÑA JR.

Justice

De livered and filed on the
1st day of August , 202 4

.
##### 



EXHIBIT 12.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ENACTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE U.S. SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Brilliance China Automotive Holdings Limited (the Company) is filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, its annual
report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002 (the Report).

I, SU Qiang, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. section 1350, as enacted pursuant to section 906 of the U.S.
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:



| | (i)  |  | the Report fully complies with the requirements
of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act
of 1934; and                          
| | ---- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| | (ii) |  | the information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company.

| |  |                                               
| |  | ----------------------------------------------
| |  | /s/ Su Qiang                                  
| |  |                                               
| |  | SU Qiang
Chief Executive Officer
June 24, 2003

81
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1
                                                                                
                        Consent of Independent Auditors

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on
Form S-8 (No. 333-07135 and No. 333-28991) pertaining to the Employee Stock
Purchase Plan, the 1996 Stock Option Plan and the 401(k) Salary Reduction Plan
and Trust of Ribozyme Pharmaceuticals, Inc. of our report dated February 16,
1999, with respect to the financial statements of Ribozyme Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
1998.


  /s/ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Denver, Colorado
March 24, 1999
Exhibit 10.32 

Summary of Non-Employee Director
Compensation 

     Ruddick
Corporation (the “Company”) compensates each member of its Board of Directors
(the “Board) who is not an employee of the Company or its subsidiaries.
Effective January 1, 2008, non-employee directors will receive $32,000 per year
for services as a director, plus $2,000 for each Board meeting or committee
meeting attended. In addition to the general fees for directors described above,
the Chairman of the Audit Committee of the Board is paid an additional annual
fee of $6,000 for services as chairman of that committee. 

     Non-employee directors of the
Company may defer the payment of the annual fee and/or Board meeting fees,
pursuant to the Company’s Director Deferral Plan (the “Deferral Plan”). The
deferred fees are converted into units representing shares of Common Stock of
the Company (the “Common Stock”) with a fair market value equal to the value of
the fees deferred, and the number of units is then credited to the director’s
account, along with additional units representing the amount of any dividends or
stock distributions. Upon termination of service as a director or in the event
of death, the balance of the director’s account will be distributed to the
director or a designated beneficiary in the form of Common Stock. 

     Under the Company’s 1995
Comprehensive Stock Option Plan (the “1995 Plan”), the Company automatically
granted each non-employee director at the time the 1995 Plan was adopted a
ten-year option to purchase 10,000 shares of Common Stock at an exercise price
equal to the fair market value of the Common Stock on the date of the option
grant. Since that time, pursuant to the provisions of the Company’s stock option
plans, the Company has automatically granted a ten-year option to purchase
10,000 shares of Common Stock to each new non-employee director upon his or her
initial election as director. These options are immediately vested, and the
exercise price of these options is equal to the fair market value of the Common
Stock on the date of the director’s election.

     The Company grants additional equity
awards to its non-employee directors from time to time, at the Board’s
discretion. These equity awards generally have taken the form of stock option
grants and discretionary contributions by the Company to the Deferral Plan for
the benefit of each non-employee director, however, other award types may be
granted in the future at the discretion of the Board. On November 15, 2007, the
Board approved discretionary contributions by the Company to the Deferral Plan
for the benefit of each non-employee director in the amount of $12,000.





     The Company also provides term
life insurance coverage for each non-employee director.
#### Ray Ammirati, Appellant, v Edwin A. Arias, Defendant, and Alliance for Health, Inc., et al., Respondents.

[976 NYS2d 102]

*772In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bayne, J.), dated April 13, 2012, which granted the motion of the defendants Alliance for Health, Inc., Accent Care, Inc., and Accent Care of New York, Inc., for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion of the defendants Alliance for Health, Inc., Accent Care, Inc., and Accent Care of New York, Inc., for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them is denied.

The plaintiff allegedly was injured when a vehicle driven by the defendant Edwin A. Arias ran over the plaintiffs foot as Arias was attempting to park near the Brooklyn office of his employers, the defendants Alliance for Health, Inc., Accent Care, Inc., and Accent Care of New York, Inc. (hereinafter collectively the respondents). The plaintiff thereafter commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries, and the respondents moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them, contending that Arias was not acting within the scope of his employment when the accident occurred. The Supreme Court granted the motion.

The respondents failed to establish, prima facie, that they cannot be held vicariously liable for Arias’s alleged acts, as the evidence submitted by the respondents did not sufficiently show that he was acting outside the scope of his employment when the accident took place *(see Riviello v Waldron,*47 NY2d 297, 302 [1979]). “ ‘An act is considered to be within the scope of employment if it is performed while the employee is engaged generally in the business of his [or her] employer, or if his [or her] act may be reasonably said to be necessary or incidental to such employment’ ” *(Holmes v Gary Goldberg & Co., Inc.,*40 AD3d 1033, 1034 [2007], quoting *Davis v Larhette,*39 AD3d 693, 694 [2007]). Here, Arias’s deposition testimony raised a triable issue of fact as to whether he was delivering documents from the respondents’ Bronx office to their Brooklyn location at the time of the incident. Since the respondents failed to establish, prima facie, their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, we need not review the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s opposition papers, and the motion should have been denied *(see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr.,*64 NY2d 851 [1985]). Eng, *P.J.,*Dickerson, Chambers and Hall, JJ., concur.
[935 NE2d 801, 909 NYS2d 9]

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ronald Mack, Appellant.

Decided September 21, 2010

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Muldoon & Getz,*Rochester *(Gary Muldoon*of counsel), for appellant.

*Richard*A. *Brown, District Attorney,*Kew Gardens *(Merri Turk Lasky*of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed. Defendant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel *(see People v Borrell,*12 NY3d 365, 369 [2009]).

Concur: Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones.
EXHIBIT 10.1


                            BUFFALO WILD WINGS, INC.
                      2008 EXECUTIVE CASH INCENTIVE PROGRAM

Our program for fiscal 2008 under the previously adopted Cash Incentive Plan is
designed to provide an annual incentive bonus to executive officers based on the
achievement of certain financial objectives, as well as individual performance.
The financial objectives are set annually by our Board of Directors. Payments
under the 2008 program for achievement of Company financial objectives are based
on the following: revenue, net income, same-store sales increases, and increase
in the number of system-wide locations.

The Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, and Executive Vice
President, General Counsel may receive bonuses of up to 108% of their base
salary for the Company achieving financial objectives, and up to an additional
20% of base salary on a discretionary basis for individual performance as
determined in the discretion of our Board of Directors. Other executive officers
may receive bonuses of up to 76.2% of their base salary for achieving financial
objectives, and up to an additional 15% of their base salary for individual
performance. The level of bonus payable based on Company financial objectives
varies depending upon the percentage of the objective that we achieve. If a
certain minimum percentage for a Company financial objective is not achieved, no
bonus is paid for that objective.


                                       5
<TABLE> <S> <C>


        <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE>5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS CONTAINED IN THE
REGISTRANT'S FORM 10-QSB AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>1

<S>                                                      <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            JUN-30-2001
<PERIOD-START>                               JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                 SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                       475,765
<SECURITIES>                                 0
<RECEIVABLES>                                8,059
<ALLOWANCES>                                 0
<INVENTORY>                                  0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             639,873
<PP&E>                                       12,309
<DEPRECIATION>                               0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               652,182
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        74,542
<BONDS>                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        0
<PREFERRED>                                  0
<COMMON>                                     26,088
<OTHER-SE>                                   528,119
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 652,182
<SALES>                                      24,190
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             24,190
<CGS>                                        0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             91,575
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           4,500
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (68,885)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (69,685)
<DISCONTINUED>                               0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              0
<CHANGES>                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                                (69,685)
<EPS-BASIC>                               (.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                               (.00)




</TABLE>
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1"> The People of the State of New York,<br><br>against<br><br>Gabriel Hernandez, Defendant-Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Tamiko A. Amaker, J.), rendered May 29, 2013, convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of harassment in the second degree, and imposing sentence.</p><p>Per Curiam.</p><p>Judgment of conviction (Tamiko A. Amaker, J.) rendered May 29, 2013, affirmed.</p><p>The record establishes that defendant's plea was knowing, intelligent and voluntary. In full satisfaction of an accusatory instrument charging defendant with attempted assault in the third degree and harassment in the second degree, defendant pleaded guilty to a single count of second degree harassment, a violation, in return for a negotiated sentence of conditional discharge. In response to the court's questioning, defendant confirmed that he was pleading guilty of his own free will and that he wished to plead guilty because he was in fact guilty, and that he understood that he was giving up the right to a trial. A plea of guilty "will not be invalidated  solely because the Trial Judge failed to specifically enumerate all the rights to which the defendant was entitled and to elicit from him ... a list of detailed waivers before accepting the guilty plea'" (<i>People v Tyrell</i>, 22 NY3d 359, 365, quoting <i>People v Harris</i>,61 NY2d 9, 16 [1983]).</p><p>Nor was the accusatory instrument jurisdictionally defective. Defendant's intent to "harass, annoy or alarm another person" (<i>see </i>Penal Law ยง 240.26) was readily inferable from defendant's admission that he "punched" the complainant (<a href="../2014/2014_08917.htm" target="_blank"><i>see People v Hernandez</i>, 123 AD3d 615</a> [2014], <i>lv denied </i>25 NY3d 1165 [2015]). That other, innocent inferences could be drawn from defendant's quoted statement that the punch was in self-defense "is irrelevant on this pleading stage inquiry" (<i>People v Deegan</i>, 69 NY2d 976, 979 [1987]).</p><p>In any event, the only relief defendant requests is a dismissal of the information, and he expressly requests that this Court affirm his conviction if it does not grant a dismissal. Since dismissal is not warranted, we affirm on this basis as well (<a href="../2013/2013_08025.htm" target="_blank"><i>see People v Diaz</i>, 112 AD3d 423</a>, <font color="FF0000">[*2]</font>424 [2013], <i>lv denied </i>23 NY3d 1036 [2014]).</p><p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.</p><br>I concurย  I concurย  I concur<br>Decision Date: January 20, 2017<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_1_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
No. 837.

#### Betts *v.*Brady, Warden.

February 16, 1942.

*Messrs. William L. Marbury, Jr.*and *Jesse Slingluff, Jr.*for petitioner. *Mr. William C. Walsh,*Attorney General of Maryland, for respondent.

Petition for writ of certiorari to Carroll T. Bond, a Judge of the State of Maryland, being a judge of the Court of Appeals of Maryland from the City of Baltimore, granted. Counsel are requested on the argument of this case to discuss the jurisdiction of this Court, particularly (1) whether the decision below is that of a court within the meaning of § 237 of the Judicial Code, and (2) whether state remedies, either by appeal or by application to other judges or any other state court, have been exhausted.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1999
<CASH>                                         282,621
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,358,366
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  2,309,645
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,227,763
<PP&E>                                       1,989,229
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,153,736
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,274,224
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     5,376,442
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,153,736
<SALES>                                      5,828,381
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,858,381
<CGS>                                        3,988,248
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,285,798
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              50,321
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                497,666
<INCOME-TAX>                                   140,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            357,666
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   357,666
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.15


</TABLE>
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2519 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain tirebuilding machines used in 

the manufacture of extra-wide pneumatic truck and automobile tires, 

and parts and accessories thereof. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 29, 2009 

Mr. GRAHAM introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain tirebuilding machines used in the manufacture of extra-wide pneumatic 

truck and automobile tires, and parts and accessories 

thereof. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN TIREBUILDING MACHINES USED IN 

4 THE MANUFACTURE OF EXTRA-WIDE PNEU5 MATIC TRUCK AND AUTOMOBILE TIRES, AND 

6 PARTS AND ACCESSORIES THEREOF. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

8 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2519 IS

1 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

2 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Post systems, feeder systems, 

reels, conveying equipment, 

controlling machinery, and 

other motor vehicle tire production machinery, all the 

foregoing designed for the 

production of tires having a 

tread width of more than 450 

mm, and parts thereof (provided for in subheading 

8477.51.00, 8477.90.25, 

8477.90.65, or 8477.90.85) .. Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2011 ’’. 

3 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

4 subsection (a) applies to articles entered, or withdrawn 

5 from warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day 

6 after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF RIBOZYME PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. FOR THE TWELVE MONTHS
ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                      15,302,775
<SECURITIES>                                   799,616
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,044
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            16,465,994
<PP&E>                                      10,247,325
<DEPRECIATION>                               5,290,160
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              24,850,041
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,228,408
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        86,070
<OTHER-SE>                                  18,784,041
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                24,850,041
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,778,110
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            15,169,731
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             844,365
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (15,122,094)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (15,122,094)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (15,122,094)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (2.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>