alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

JOHNNY COVINGTON

VERSUS

CLARK SAND CO., INC.; CLEMCO

INDUSTRIES CORPORATION F/K/A CLEMCO

SERVICES CORP.; DEPENDABLE

AB RAS IVES, INC. ; E. D. BULLARD

COMPANY; EMPIRE ABRASIVE EQUIPMENT

COMPANY, L. P. ; LEHIGH HANSON, INC. 

A SUBSIDIARY OF HEIDELBERG CEMENT

GROUP) F/K/A HANSON AGGREGATES, 

INC. F/K/A HANSON AGGREGATES

CENTRAL, INC. F /K/A PIONEER SOUTH

CENTRAL, INC. F/K/A PIONEER

CONCRETE OF TEXAS, INC.; INGERSOLLRAND CORPORATION; LEROI COMPRESSOR

A/K/A ROTARY COMPRESSION

TECHNOLOGIES; 3M COMPANY; RUEMELIN

MANUFACTURING CO., INC.; SAN STORM, 

INC.; BOB SCHMIDT MANUFACTURING, 

INC.; SOUTHERN SILICA OF LOUISIANA, 

INC.; SPECIALTY SAND COMPANY; 

SULLAIR COMPRESSOR CORPORATION; AND

TXI OPERATIONS, L.P. 

NO. 2023 CW 1325

JANUARY 18, 2024

In Re: Empire Abrasive Equipment Company, L.P., applying for

supervisory writs, 19th Judicial District Court, 

Parish of East Baton Rouge, No. 649436. 

BEFORE: GUIDRY,C.J, CHUTZ AND LANIER, JJ. 

WRIT NOT CONSIDERED. The writ application failed to

include a copy of the judgment complained of in violation of

Rule 4-S(C) ( 6) of the Uniform Rules of Louisiana Courts of

Appeal. Re lator did not include a judgment on the motion for

summary judgment at issue filed by it; instead, the included

judgment only references the motion for summary judgment filed

by Clemco Industries Corporation. There is no reference to

relator's motion for summary judgment in the judgment or court

minutes. 

Supplementation of this writ application and/or an

application for rehearing will not be considered. Uniform Rules

of Louisiana Courts of Appeal, Rules 2-18.7 and 4-9. 

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

DEPUTY CLERK OF COURT

FOR THE COURT

JMG

WRC

WIL
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER SHORTENING TIME

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CACHIL DEHE BAND OF WINTUN INDIANS

OF THE COLUSA INDIAN COMMUNITY, a

federally recognized Indian Tribe, 

Plaintiff,

vs.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA; CALIFORNIA

GAMBLING CONTROL COMMISSION, an

agency of the State of California; and ARNOLD

SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor of the State of

California,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. CIV.S 04-2265 FCD KJM

ORDER SHORTENING TIME FOR

HEARING ON MOTION TO MODIFY

SCHEDULING ORDER

DATE: May 19, 2006

TIME: 10:00 a.m.

COURTROOM: 2

Judge: Frank C. Damrell, Jr.

Trial Date: September 19, 2006

Action Filed: October 25, 2004

Plaintiff having applied ex parte for an order shortening time for filing and serving its motion

to modify the Scheduling Order in this action so that said motion can be heard on May 19, 2006 in order

that plaintiff may file and set for hearing on June 16, 2006 its motion for summary judgment on all

claims, and good cause appearing therefor,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's Motion to Modify the Scheduling Order filed 

May 9, 2006, concurrentlywith the ex parte application ,is set for hearing on May 19, 2006 at 10:00 a.m.

Defendants may file and serve their opposition to plaintiff's motion to modify the Scheduling Order by

4:00 p.m. on May 15, 2006.

Dated: May 9, 2006

/s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

U.S. District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02265-FCD-KJN Document 18 Filed 05/09/06 Page 1 of 1
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 Commerce

###### National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

          - [I.D. 030507F] 

# AGENCY: 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. 

# ACTION: 

Notice of a public meeting. 

# SUMMARY: 

The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee will hold a Population Dynamics Sub-group public meeting. 

# DATES: 

The meeting will be held on Friday, March 30, 2007, from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. 

# ADDRESSES: 

The meeting will be held at the Courtyard by Marriott, Baltimore-Washington Airport, 1671 Nursery Rd., Linthicum, MD 21090; telephone: (410) 859-8855. 

*Council address*: Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council; 300 S. New Street, Room 2115, Dover, DE 19904; telephone: (302) 674-2331.                     

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Daniel T. Furlong, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council; 300 S. New Street, Room 2115, Dover, DE 19904; telephone: (302) 674-2331, extension 19. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

The purpose of this meeting is to address issues related to recruitment dynamics and stock rebuilding for the Atlantic butterfish stock. Additional technical issues concerning standards defining best available scientific data may also be discussed. 

## Special Accommodations 

The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to M. Jan Bryan at the Mid-Atlantic Council Office, (302) 674-2331 extension 18, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date. 

      ( print page 10712)    
Dated: March 6, 2007. 

Tracey L. Thompson, 

Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. E7-4222 Filed 3-8-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-22-S
No. 58013.

protests 218042-K, etc. (New York).

#### J. & J. Distributing Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

At the trial it was stipulated that the merchandise, issues, and facts herein are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *Browne Vintners Co., Inc.*(34 C. C. P. A. 112, C. A. D. 351) and that the case or cases of Scotch whisky reported by the inspector as manifested, not found, were not in fact received by the importers. In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the decision cited it was held that duty and internal revenue tax are not assessable upon such portions of the merchandise as were reported by the inspector as manifested, not found. The protests were sustained to this extent.
**Exhibit 99.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Sherwood Brands, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for theperiod ending January 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Uziel Frydman, Chief ExecutiveOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. (S)1350, as adoptedpursuant to (S)906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)                                  The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

 

(2)                                  The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultof operations of the Company.

 

 

Dated: March 14, 2003

 

 
|   | /s/ Uziel Frydman                     |   |
|--------|---------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Uziel Frydman                         |   |
|   | President and Chief Executive Officer |   |

 

----
No. 47368.

#### Protests 13432-K, etc., of Border Brokerage Co. (Seattle).

Opinion by

Walker, J,

It was stipulated that the lumber in question is similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Seaboard Lumber Sales Co.*v. *United States*(5 Cust. Ct. 161, C. D. 391). In accordance therewith it was held that the tax imposed should have been assessed on the basis of the condition in which imported, and that no addition should have been made for the planing, tonguing, and grooving. Protests sustained to this extent.
unis-ex1080_1799.htm



Exhibit 10.80

 

 



 

September 10, 2015

 

Mr. Michael C. Ratigan 

122 King Rd.

Chalfont, PA 18914

 

Dear Mike,

 

I am pleased to extend all of the terms of your employment set forth in the attached letter dated August 29, 2012. These terms will continue indefinitely during the course of your continued employment with Unilife, and your base compensation, target incentive compensation and equity compensation will continue to be adjusted at the discretion of Unilife's CEO consistent with the terms of the August 29 letter.   Specifically and for the sake of clarity, the severance benefits and the payments upon a Change in Control specified in the August 29 letter are continued by way of this letter, and the non-competition and confidentiality obligations are also continued by way of this letter. Additionally, future equity incentive compensation will continue to be governed by Unilife’s equity compensation plans as they are amended from time to time.

 

We wish you much continued success at Unilife and look forward to working together with you in the years to come.

 

Sincerely,

 

/s/Ramin Mojdeh

Ramin Modjeh

President and Chief Operating Officer

 

Agreed and Accepted:

 


	
/s/ Michael C. Ratigan   
	
 
	
9/10/2015

	
Michael Ratigan
	
 
	
Date
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TIMOTHY O’KEEFE,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2277 DFL JFM P

vs.

SERGEANT DIEBALL, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff has requested an extension of time to file and serve a response to

defendants’ March 14, 2005 motion to dismiss. Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s April 6, 2005 motion for an extension of time is granted; and

2. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of this order in which to file and

serve a response to defendants’ March 14, 2005 motion to dismiss.

DATED: April 22, 2005.

12/kf;okee2277.36 

Case 2:04-cv-02277-DFL -JFM Document 29 Filed 04/25/05 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE>
                                                           Exhibit 12

                    KANSAS GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
          Computations of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
                        (Dollars in Thousands)

<CAPTION>
                                                                                                  
                                                         Year Ended December 31,                   
                                        1998         1997         1996         1995         1994   
<S>                                   <C>          <C>          <C>          <C>          <C>
Net Income. . . . . . . . . . . . .   $103,765     $ 52,128     $ 96,274     $110,873     $104,526 
Taxes on Income . . . . . . . . . .     44,971       17,408       36,258       51,787       55,349 
     Net Income Plus Taxes. . . . .    148,736       69,536      132,532      162,660      159,875 
                                             
Fixed Charges:                               
  Interest on Long-Term Debt. . . .     45,990       46,062       46,304       47,073       47,827 
  Interest on Other Indebtedness. .      3,368        4,388       11,758        5,190        5,183 
  Interest on Corporate-owned                
    Life Insurance Borrowings . . .     32,368       31,253       27,636       25,357       20,990 
  Interest Applicable to Rentals. .     25,106       25,143       25,539       25,375       25,096 
      Total Fixed Charges . . . . .    106,832      106,846      111,237      102,995       99,096 
                                              
Earnings (1). . . . . . . . . . . .   $255,568     $176,382     $243,769     $265,655     $258,971 
                                              
Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges.       2.39         1.65         2.19         2.58         2.61 



                                

     (1)  Earnings are deemed to consist of net income to which has been added income taxes (including net 
     deferred  investment  tax  credit)  and  fixed  charges.  Fixed  charges consist of all interest
     on  indebtedness, amortization  of debt  discount  and  expense, and the portion of rental
     expense which represents an interest factor.
</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>  UT
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<S>                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      Dec-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                           Dec-31-1999
<BOOK-VALUE>                             PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>               2,298,895
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>               376,704
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                    162,336
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                  152,207
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                  0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          2,990,142
<COMMON>                                  449,697
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                  (1,668)
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                       418,952
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>            864,644
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          62
<PREFERRED>                                39,000
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                      685,884
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                         24,667
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                       0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>            214,032
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>             128,858
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                       0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                     0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>          1,030,658
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>           2,990,142
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                 897,393
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                       58,548
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                694,896
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                753,444
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                   143,949
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                          6,300
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>            150,249
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                   68,334
<NET-INCOME>                               81,915
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                 3,733
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>              78,182
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                  102,751
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                  51,327
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                    160,109
<EPS-BASIC>                                1.26
<EPS-DILUTED>                                1.26


</TABLE>
No. 65519.

#### Ideal Toy Corporation *v.*United States,

protests 60/26489, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of carrizo baskets the same in all material respects as those the subject of *Chester K. Stoner*v. *United States*(42 Cust. Ct. 178, C.D. 2083), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v JAMES K. BURNS, Jr., Airman Second Class U. S. Air Force, Appellant

17 USCMA 39, 37 CMR 303

No. 20,051

May 12, 1967

*Colonel Joseph Buchta*and *Lieutenant Colonel Carl R. Abrams*were on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Colonel James R. Thorn*and *Lieutenant Colonel David B. Stevens*were on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

Ferguson, Judge:

Convicted by general court-martial of four specifications of forgery, in violation of Uniform Code of Military *40Justice, Article 123, 10 USC § 923, the accused was sentenced to bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, confinement at hard labor for one year, and reduction. Intermediate appellate authorities affirmed, and accused has petitioned this Court, alleging, *inter alia,*that his pretrial «statements should not have been received in evidence against him in view of his interrogator’s failure to advise him of his rights to counsel in accordance with the decision of the Supreme Court in Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436, 16 L ed 2d 694, 86 S Ct 1602 (1966).

From the record, it appears that accused, suspected of the offenses in question, was summoned to the Office of Special Investigations and there interrogated after being warned of his rights under Code, supra, Article 31, 10 USC § 831, and that he was entitled to “ ‘consult with legal counsel if you so desire.’ ” In United States v Tempia, 16 USCMA 629, 37 CMR 249, decided April 25, 1967, we held the interrogation rules laid down in *Miranda,*supra, were applicable in the armed services, and that a warning similar to that given here was insufficient to meet such requirements. We there likewise pointed out that an interrogation by a military investigator in the Office of Special Investigations, under the circumstances depicted, was custodial in nature and, hence, that the *Miranda*doctrine applied to bar use of the accused’s confession. We reach an identical conclusion here. In light of the agent’s failure to advise accused properly regarding his entitlement to counsel, the statements thereafter obtained from him were not admissible and, on defense counsel’s proper objection, should have been excluded. Their receipt in evidence was prejudicial error.

The accused’s petition for review is granted. The findings of guilty and sentence are set aside. The decision of the board of review is reversed, and the record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Air Force. A rehearing may be ordered.

Chief Judge Quinn and Judge Kilday concur.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. PD-0474-19

JAMES RAY PENDERGRAFT, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

ORDER REGARDING REPRESENTATION

SMITH COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Appellant was convicted of aggravated assault in cause number 007-1264-17 in the 7th

District Court of Smith County. Appellant was sentenced to confinement for 35 years. The court

of appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court. Pendergraft v. State, No.12-18-00091-CR (Tex.

App. —Tyler, delivered April 17, 2019). The Appellant’s Pro Se petition for discretionary review

was granted by this Court on October 23, 2019. Appellant is entitled to representation before this

Court at this time. See Article 1.051(a)(d)(2), V.A.C.C.P. Appellant is without representation in
this Court. Accordingly, the trial court is ordered to determine if Appellant is currently represented

by counsel, and if so, to inform this court who represents Appellant. If Appellant is not currently

represented by counsel and desires counsel, the trial court must first determine whether Appellant

is indigent. If the trial court finds Appellant is indigent, that court shall appoint an attorney to

represent Appellant before this court in regard to PDR No. PD-0474-19, in accord with the

provisions of Articles 1.051 and 26.04, V.A.C.C.P. Any hearing conducted pursuant to this order

shall be held within 30 days of the date of this order. The trial court's order appointing counsel, any

findings of fact, affidavits, or transcription of the court reporter's notes and any other

supplementation of the record shall be returned to this court within 45 days of the date of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS THE 23 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019. RD

DO NOT PUBLISH
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 42 (Monday, March 5, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 9833]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-3731]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service


Open Meeting of the Area 6 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel (Including the 
States of Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, 
Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington and Wyoming)

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: An open meeting of the Area 6 committee of the Taxpayer 
Advocacy Panel will be conducted in Mesa, Arizona. The Taxpayer 
Advocacy Panel (TAP) is soliciting public comments, ideas, and 
suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue 
Service. The TAP will use citizen input to make recommendations to the 
Internal Revenue Service.

DATES: The meeting will be held Thursday, March 29, 2007, Friday, March 
30, 2007 and Saturday, March 31, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dave Coffman at 1-888-912-1227, or 
206-220-6096.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 
10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) 
that an open meeting of the Area 6 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be held 
Thursday, March 29, 2007 from 1 p.m. Mountain Standard Time to 2:30 
p.m. Mountain Standard Time; Friday, March 30, 2007 from 8:30 a.m. 
Mountain Standard Time to 5 p.m. Mountain Standard Time; and Saturday, 
March 31, 2007 from 8:30 a.m. Mountain Standard Time to 11:30 a.m. 
Mountain Standard Time at 200 North Centennial Way, Mesa, Arizona. The 
public is invited to make oral comments. Individual comments will be 
limited to 5 minutes. If you would like to have the TAP consider a 
written statement, please call 1-888-912-1227 or 206-220-6096, or write 
to Dave Coffman, TAP Office, 915 2nd Avenue, MS W-406, Seattle, WA 
98174 or you can contact us at http://www.improveirs.org. Due to 
limited space, notification of intent to participate in the meeting 
must be made with Dave Coffman. Mr. Coffman can be reached at 1-888-
912-1227 or 206-220-6096.
    The agenda will include the following: Various IRS issues.

    Dated: February 27, 2007.
John Fay,
Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.
 [FR Doc. E7-3731 Filed 3-2-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
No. 59561.

protests 228177-K, etc. (New York).

#### Capitol Distributors Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *R. C. Williams & Co., Inc.*(40 C. C. P. A. 130, C. A. D. 508) and *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C. D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.