alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Filed 12/13/07 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2007 ND 191

John Witzke, Plaintiff and Appellant

v.

Ania Diaz Gonzales, Defendant and Appellee

No. 20070162

Appeal from the District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial District, the Honorable Bruce A. Romanick, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

John Witzke (on brief), pro se, Bismarck, ND 58501, plaintiff and appellant.

Ania Diaz Gonzales (on brief), pro se, Bismarck, ND 58501, defendant and appellee.

Witzke v. Gonzales

No. 20070162

Per Curiam.

[¶1]John Witzke appeals from an order granting summary judgment and dismissing his complaint for claims of private nuisance and defamation.

[¶2]Witzke’s complaint alleges his neighbor, Gonzales, created a private nuisance by allowing her dogs to bark; because her yard contains “toxic dust” derived from the dogs defecating and urinating in her yard, which allegedly travels into Witkze’s adjacent yard; and because Gonzales has surveillance cameras attached to her home.  He further alleges claims of defamation, both libel and slander, based on a letter in the newspaper written by Gonzales and a report Gonzales gave to police officers.  Summary judgment dismissing the action is supported by the record with regard to all of Witzke’s claims.

[¶3]We summarily affirm the order granting summary judgment and dismissing Witzke’s nuisance and defamation claims under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(6).

[¶4]Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Carol Ronning Kapsner

Dale V. Sandstrom

Daniel J. Crothers

Mary Muehlen Maring
Exhibit 10.5

 

Owl Rock Capital Advisors LLC

245 Park Avenue, 41st Floor

New York, NY 10167

 

June 8, 2018

 

Craig W. Packer

Owl Rock Capital Corporation II

245 Park Avenue, 41st Floor

New York, NY 10167

 

|        |     |                                |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------|
|   | Re: | Partial Waiver of Advisory Fee |

 

Dear Mr. Packer,

 

Reference is hereby made to the Investment Advisory Agreement (the “Investment Advisory Agreement”), dated February 6, 2017, by and between Owl Rock Capital Corporation II (the “Company”) and Owl Rock Capital Advisors LLC (the “Adviser”). Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meaning ascribed to them in the Investment Advisory Agreement.

 

Beginning April 1, 2018 (the “Effective Date”), we hereby agree at all times prior to the date of the closing of a liquidity event (as such term is defined in the Registration Statement) (a “Liquidity Event”), to waive (A) any portion of the Management Fee that is in excess of 1.50% of the Company’s gross assets, excluding cash and cash-equivalents but including assets purchased with borrowed amounts at the end of the two most recently completed calendar quarters, calculated in accordance with the Investment Advisory Agreement, (B) any portion of the Incentive Fee on Income that is in excess of 17.5% of the Company’s Pre-Incentive Fee Net Investment Income which shall be calculated in accordance with the Investment Advisory Agreement but based on a Quarterly Preferred Return of 1.50% per quarter and an Upper Level Breakpoint of 1.818%, and (C) any portion of the Incentive Fee on Capital Gains that is in excess of 17.5% of the Company’s realized capital gains, if any, on a cumulative basis from inception through the end of such calendar year, net of all realized capital losses and unrealized capital depreciation on a cumulative basis, minus the aggregate amount of any previously paid Incentive Fee on Capital Gains as calculated in accordance with U.S. GAAP.  

 

Any portion of the Management Fee, Incentive Fee on Income and Incentive Fee on Capital Gains waived shall not be subject to recoupment.  

 For the avoidance of doubt, the purpose of the waivers described herein is to reduce aggregate fees payable to the Adviser by the Company, from and after the Effective Date and until the closing of a Liquidity Event. 

|        |                               |                                                   |
|--------|-------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------|
|   |                          |                                              |
|   | Sincerely yours,              |
|   |                          |
|   | Owl Rock Capital Advisors LLC |
|   |                          |
|   | By:                           |           |
|   |                          | Name: Alan Kirshenbaum                            |
|   |                          | Title: Chief Operating Officer                    |

 

 

1
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                          OF CORPORATE GENERAL PARTNER

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

The undersigned, James M. Seneff, Jr., the Chief Executive Officer of CNL Realty
Corporation,  the  corporate  general  partner of CNL Income Fund VII, Ltd. (the
"Partnership"),  has executed this  certification  in connection with the filing
with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission  of the  Partnership's  Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the period  ending  March 31, 2004 (the  "Report").  The
undersigned hereby certifies 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 results of operations of the Partnership.

Date: May 11, 2004                      /s/ James M. Seneff, Jr.
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                         Name:  James M. Seneff, Jr.
                                         Title: Chief Executive Officer

                                         A  signed   original  of  this  written
                                         statement  required  by Section 906 has
                                         been  provided  to CNL Income Fund VII,
                                         Ltd. and will be retained by CNL Income
                                         Fund VII,  Ltd.  and  furnished  to the
                                         Securities  and Exchange  Commission or
                                         its staff upon request.
§ 1.358-4 Exceptions. ( a ) *Plan of reorganization adopted after October 22, 1968.* In the case of a plan of reorganization adopted after October 22, 1968, section 358 does not apply in determining the basis of property acquired by a corporation in connection with such reorganization by the exchange of its stock or securities (or by the exchange of stock or securities of a corporation which is in control of the acquiring corporation) as the consideration in whole or in part for the transfer of the property to it. See section 362 and the regulations pertaining to that section for rules relating to basis to corporations of property acquired in such cases.
( b ) *Plan of reorganization adopted before October 23, 1968.* In the case of a plan of reorganization adopted before October 23, 1968, section 358 does not apply in determining the basis of property acquired by a corporation in connection with such reorganization by the issuance of stock or securities of such corporation (or by the issuance of stock or securities of another corporation which is in control of such corporation) as the consideration in whole or in part for the transfer of the property to it. The term *issuance of stock or securities* includes any transfer of stock or securities, including stock or securities which were purchased or were acquired as a contribution to capital. See section 362 and the regulations pertaining to that section for rules relating to basis to corporations of property acquired in such cases.
[T.D. 7422, 41 FR 26569, June 28, 1976]
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 21, 2016

t0914 

# Order

Clerk September 21, 2016

153367

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 153367

COA: 315774

Wayne CC: 12

- 001086

- FC

ANTON T. BLEVINS,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 11, 2016

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, it appearing t o this Court that the

cases of People v Steanhouse (Docket No. 152849) and People v Masroor (Docket Nos.

152946

- 8) are pending on appeal before this Court and that the decisions in those cases

may resolve an issue raised in the present application for leav e to appeal, we ORDER that

the application be held in ABEYANCE pending the decisions in those cases.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsFunding and Strategic Alignment Guidance for Infusing Small Business Innovation Research Technology Into Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate Programs and Projects for 2015This report is intended to help NASA program and project managers incorporate Small Business Innovation Research/Small Business Technology Transfer (SBIR)/(STTR) technologies into NASA Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate (ARMD) projects. Other Government and commercial projects managers can also find this useful.Document ID20160014471Acquisition SourceGlenn Research CenterDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsNguyen, Hung D.*(NASA Glenn Research Center Cleveland, OH United States)*Steele, Gynelle C.*(NASA Glenn Research Center Cleveland, OH United States)*Date AcquiredDecember 6, 2016Publication DateNovember 1, 2016Subject CategoryAdministration And ManagementAstronautics (General)Report/Patent NumberGRC-E-DAA-TN26744NASA/TM-2016-218906Funding Number(s)WBS: WBS 471296.01.03.01Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Keywordsaeronauticsinfusion technologyARMDAvailable DownloadsNameType20160014471.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
#### Williams *v.*The State.

Per Curiam.

The court did not err in overruling the motion for new trial, based upon the extraordinary ground of newly discovered evidence. Such motions are not generally favored, and should not be granted unless there is a likelihood that upon a second investigation a result different from that first obtained would be reached. The newly discovered evidence, the validity and credibility of which was addressed to the trial judge, would not likely produce a different result, and the court did not abuse his discretion in.refusing the grant of another trial.

*Judgment wffirmed.*

*All the Justices concur, except*

*175No. 8488.

January 16, 1932.

Atkinson, J.,

dissenting. “When material evidence, not merely cumulative or impeaching in its character, but relating to new and important facts, is discovered after a trial, and it appears that the failure to discover it before trial was not due to a want of diligence, and when the nature of the newly discovered evidence is such that it might, on am other hearing, produce a different verdict, a motion for a new trial, based on the ground of such newly discovered evidence, should be granted.” *Carr*v. *State,*106 *Ga.*737 (32 S. E. 844); *Mathews*v. *State,*56 *Ga.*469; *Dale*v. *State,*88 *Ga.*552 (5) (15 S. E. 287); *Fellows*v. *State,*114 *Ga.*233 (39 S. E. 885); *Grow*v. *State,*5 *Ga. App.*70 (62 S. E. 669); *Thompson*v. *State,*60 *Ga.*619; *Hill*v. *State,*161 *Ga.*188 (5) (129 S. E. 647). The alleged newly discovered evidence in this case is of such character as would likely produce a different result, and the judge erred in overruling the extraordinary motion for a new trial.

*180
      *G. C. Anderson*and *Joseph Law,*for plaintiff in error.

*George Hains, solicitor-general*and *John M. Graham,*contra.
Exhibit 99.2



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 Sky Financial Group, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Kevin T. Thompson, Chief Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.
1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (3) |  | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (4) |  | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|
|
|
|



April 30, 2003
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                      13,929,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                              309,785,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                10,434,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           333,492,000
<PP&E>                                      51,063,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              39,010,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             421,757,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      240,482,000
<BONDS>                                    138,880,000<F1>
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       225,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  33,749,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               421,757,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           839,716,000<F2>
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              258,108,000<F3>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             1,345,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          13,397,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              9,124,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,642,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            170,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   170,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.01
<FN>
<F1>Excludes current portion of bonds, mortgage, and similar debt.
<F2>Represents gross revenue which includes costs of certain services
subcontracted to third parties and other reimbursable direct project costs, such
as materials procured by the Company on behalf of its customers.
<F3>Excludes subcontract and direct material cost of $511,606,000
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE> 1

Item 6.
-------



                                      Exhibit 11
                                      ----------



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                         Three Months
                                                                            Ended
Computation of per share earnings                                      December 31, 1997
                                                                       -----------------

<S>                                                                        <C>
Net income                                                                  $699,553
                                                                            --------

Weighted average common shares outstanding                                 1,609,900
                                                                           ---------

Common stock equivalents due to dilutive effect of stock options              70,200
                                                                              ------

Total weighted average common shares and equivalents outstanding           1,680,100
                                                                           ---------

Basic earnings per common share                                                $0.43
                                                                               -----

Diluted earnings per common share                                              $0.42
                                                                               -----

</TABLE>
Amendment Number 1, dated January 3, 2007



 EXHIBIT 10.10.1 
 Amendment Number 1 to 
 AMENDED AND RESTATED 
 EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
 Greg A. Walker

 THIS AMENDMENT, is made effective as of January 3, 2007, by and between Foundation Coal Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the
“Company”) and (“Executive”). 
 WHEREAS, the Company and Executive previously entered into an Amended and
Restated Employment Agreement, dated March 13, 2006 (the “Employment Agreement”); and 
 WHEREAS, the
Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company (“Committee”) has considered the annual bonus percentage of base salary for obtaining target performance contained in the Employment Agreement; and 
 WHEREAS, the Compensation Committee requested a report from its independent compensation consultant regarding the appropriate percentage level of base
salary for obtaining target performance; and 
 WHEREAS, the Compensation Committee has reviewed the information provided by independent
compensation consultant and has determined it would be in the best interest of the Company and its Stockholders to amend the Employment Agreement to revise the percentage level of base salary for obtaining target performance. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and mutual covenants herein and for other good and valuable consideration, the parties agree as follows:

 Section 4. Annual Bonus. The Percent of Base Salary is revised for obtaining 100% of Target Performance as shown: 

From: 
  

							
	 Company
 Performance
	  	 Percent of
Base Salary
	  	 Individual
 Performance
	  	 Percent of
Base Salary

	 100% of Target
	  	33.33%	  	Target	  	16.67%

 To: 
  

							
	 Company
 Performance
	  	 Percent of
Base Salary
	  	 Individual
 Performance
	  	 Percent of
Base Salary

	 100% of Target
	  	43.5%	  	Target	  	21.5%

  

 1 








 Except as otherwise noted in this Amendment Number 1, all other terms and conditions of the Employment Agreement remain
as originally written. In the event of any inconsistency between the terms of this Amendment Number 1 and the terms of the Employment Agreement, the terms of this Amendment Number 1 shall be controlling. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have duly executed this Agreement as of the day and year first above written. 
  

									
	FOUNDATION COAL CORPORATION	 		 	GREG A. WALKER
					
	  	 	/S/ MICHAEL R. PEELISH	 		 	  	 	/S/ GREG A. WALKER
	 By:
 Title:
	 	 Michael R. Peelish
 SVP Safety and Human
Resources
	 		 		 	

  

 2
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ernest F. COBLE, Jr., Defendant-Appellant. *676United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ernest F. Coble, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

Nos. 99-4708, 99-4713.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 31, 2002.

Decided June 20, 2002.

Ernest F. Coble, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Harry L. Hobgood, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

In these consolidated appeals, Ernest F. Coble appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion to dismiss the indictment and from his conviction of attempting to obstruct and impede the administration of the tax laws, in violation of 26 U.S.C.A. § 7212(a) (West 2002).* We conclude, first, that Coble’s motion to dismiss the indictment for lack of subject matter jurisdiction patently is meritless; therefore, the district court properly denied the motion. Second, our review of the record discloses that the evidence presented by the Government — Coble’s use of an invalid “comptroller warrant” to discharge his tax liability and to receive a substantial tax refund — was sufficient to sustain Coble’s conviction under § 7212(a). *See Glasser v. United States,*315 U.S. 60, 80, 62 S.Ct. 457, 86 L.Ed. 680 (1942) (providing standard of review); *United States v. Wells,*163 F.3d 889, 897 (4th Cir.1998) (defining the elements of a § 7212(a) offense and affirming a conviction under that section). We also have reviewed all of Coble’s claims raised in his informal briefs and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Coble’s motion to dismiss the indictment and affirm his conviction. In light of this disposition, we also deny Coble’s motion entitled “Emergency Petition for Administrative Review.” We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*

*

The facts underlying Coble’s conviction are provided in our prior opinion, in which we reversed Coble’s sentence and remanded for resentencing. *United States v. Coble,*No. 00-4247, 2001 WL 431529, 11 Fed.Appx. 193 (4th Cir. April 27, 2001) (unpublished).