alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>


                                 SERP AGREEMENT

THIS AGREEMENT (this "SERP Agreement"), dated as of February 15, 2000, by and
among Sterling Software, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), Computer
Associates International, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Parent"), and Geno
P. Tolari, and individual (the "Executive").

                                   WITNESSETH:

         WHEREAS, the Executive is a participant in the Amended and Restated
Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan II (the "SERP");

         NOW THEREFORE, the Company, the Parent and the Executive agree as
follows:

         1.       This SERP Agreement shall be of no force and effect if the
                  Offer (as defined in the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated
                  as of February 14, 2000, among the Parent, Silversmith
                  Acquisition Corp. and the Company) is not consummated.

         2.       The Company shall pay to the Executive, within five (5) days
                  after the date of termination of the Executive's employment
                  for any reason, a lump sum payment in cash equal to
                  $3,527,640. Such amount shall be satisfaction in full for the
                  Company's obligations to the Executive pursuant to the SERP.




<PAGE>

                  IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this SERP
Agreement to be duly executed and delivered as of the first date first written
above.


                                       STERLING SOFTWARE, INC.

                                       By: /s/ Don J. McDermett, Jr.
                                           -----------------------------------
                                           Don J. McDermett, Jr.
                                           Senior Vice President &
                                           General Counsel


                                       COMPUTER ASSOCIATES
                                       INTERNATIONAL, INC.

                                       By: /s/ Steven M. Woghin
                                           -----------------------------------
                                           Steven M. Woghin
                                           Senior Vice President &
                                           General Counsel


                                       /s/ Geno P. Tolari
                                       --------------------------------------
                                       Geno P. Tolari


                                       2
Before the Second Division,

June 9, 1949

No. 53246.

#### International Expediters, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 124870-K/789, etc. (Chicago).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

The protests were dismissed.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                 Exhibit 10.10.1


                                 Promissory Note
                                 ---------------



     $10,000                 Toronto, Ontario             September 24th 1998
------------------      ----------------------------    -----------------------

One-year after date, for value received, the undersigned promises to pay to
Space Systems International Corp, the sum of 10,000 dollars U.S.

This is for Payment of 50,000 Shares Valued at .20 Dollars per Share for the
Following Receipts: Sondra Black [10,000], Lorne Berman [10,000], Ila Berman
[10,000], Lindi Rivers [10,000], Laurie Slater [10,000].


                                         /s/ Barry Berman
                                         -------------------------------------
                                         DR. BARRY BERMAN

                                         1131 STEELES AVE. W. PH 104

                                         TORONTO ONT. M2R3W8
(Reap. Dec. 9847)

#### Empire Plastic Corp. *v.*United States

Entry No. 966166.

(Decided on rehearing [not published] November 22, 1960)

*BrooJcs & BrooJcs*for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

*561Oliver, Chief Judge:

Counsel for the respective parties have submitted this appeal for reappraisement for decision on a written stipulation, reading as follows:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, subject to tbe approval of tbe Court, as follows:

> 1. That tbe instant merchandise consists of certain table tennis balls imported from Japan.

> 2. That the market value or tbe price, at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which imported, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature, and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition packed ready for shipment to the United States, is $1.53 per gross, net packed, ex factory.

> 3. That there was no higher foreign value.

> 4. That the instant appeal for reappraisement may be submitted upon this stipulation.

Ou tbe agreed facts, I find that the proper basis for appraisement of the table tennis balls in question is export value, as defined in section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, and hold that such statutory value therefor is $1.53 per gross, net packed, ex-factory.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Case No. 13,367.

#### STEPHENS v. CALDWELL.

Penal Action — Affixino Word “Patent” to Unfatented Articles — Making Application for Patent — Purpose.

1. The penalty specified in section 5 of the act of 1842 [5 Stat. 544] for affixing the word “Patent” to an unpatented article is incurred as to all articles made and having such word affixed with a.guilty purpose; and this is not changed by the party making application for a patent during such manufacture, at least as to such as were made or ordered to be made and so stamped before his application.

[Cited in Oliphant v. Salem Flouring Mills, Case No. 10,486.]

2. The penalty mentioned in this section is incurred as to ail articles made, and having the word “Patent” affixed, with a guilty purpose.

[Nowhere reported: opinion not now accessible. Cited in Law’s Pat. Dig. 585, to points as above stated.]
(Reap. Dec. 8862)

#### Carbons, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry Nos. 763837; 785065; 797357.

(Decided June 20, 1957)

*Fred*Bennett; *Jordan & Klingaman,*associate counsel; for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Johnson, Judge;

These appeals for reappraisement have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the parties hereto, subject to the approval of the court,

> 1- That all the merchandise on the entries the subject of the above-entitled reappraisement appeals consists of arc light carbons imported from Prance.

> 2- That the issues in the aforesaid appeals are the same in all material respects as those decided in *Bert Friedberg & Company*v. *United States,*R. D. 8590, and that the record in the said R. D. 8590 may be incorporated in the record in each of the aforesaid appeals.

> 3- That the appraised value of the merchandise in each of the aforesaid appeals, less 15.1 per cent, is equal to the price, at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale for home consumption to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature, and all other costs, charges, and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States, and that, on or about the dates of exportation of the merchandise herein involved, merchandise such as or similar thereto was not sold or offered for sale in the country of exportation for export to the United States.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the reappraisement appeals herein may be submitted on the foregoing stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the foreign value, as that value is defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by section 8 of the Customs Administrative Act of 1938, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such value in each instance was the appraised value, less 15.1 per centum.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

            Pursuant  to  section  906  of  the   Sarbanes-Oxley   Act  of  2002
      (subsection  (a) and (b) of section  1350,  chapter 63 of title 18, United
      States  Code),   each  of  the  undersigned   officers  of  Canal  Capital
      Corporation and Subsidiaries, a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), does
      hereby certify that:

      The Quarterly Report of Form 10-Q for the three months ended July 31, 2007
      (the "Form 10-Q") of the Company fully complies with the  requirements  of
      section  13(a)  or  15(d)  of the  Securities  Exchange  Act of  1934  and
      information  contained in the Form 10-Q fairly  presents,  in all material
      respects,  the  financial  condition  and  results  of  operations  of the
      Company.


Date: September 13, 2007                          /S/ Michael E. Schultz
                                                  -----------------------
                                                  Chief Executive Officer


Date: September 13, 2007                          /S/ Reginald Schauder
                                                  -----------------------
                                                  Chief Financial Officer
## NUMBER 13

- 2 3

- 00 152

- CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

– EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________ JOSIE LEE LOZA , Appellant,

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

____________________________________________________________

On a ppeal from the County Court of Live Oak County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________



## MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Benavides , Longoria, and Tijerina Memorandum Opinion by Justice Benavides

This cause is before the court on a ppellant ’s motion to dismiss

. Counsel for

a ppellant and the appellant signed the motion . Furthermore, the appellant signed an

attached affidavit

. We find the motion and affidavit together meet the requirement of
Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.2(a) that appellant and attorney must sign a written
motion to dismiss the appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 42.2(a). Without passing on the merits2

of the case , we grant the motion to dismiss and dismiss the appeal.
Having dismissed the appeal at appellant's request, no motion for rehearing will be

entertained.

GINA M. BENAVIDES J ustice

Do not pu bl ish. T EX

. R

. A PP . P

. 47.2(b).

D elivered and filed on the 18th day of May , 202 3

.
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas December 8, 2022 No. 04-22-00486-CR EX PARTE Elvin Maudiel Lopez DUBON From the County Court, Kinney County, Texas

Trial Court No. 10371CR Honorable Dennis Powell, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R On December 2, 2022, the State filed an unopposed motion to consolidate, seeking consolidation of this case with seventeen others and for an extension of time to file its brief. We DENY the motion as to consolidation, but we GRANT the motion as to the extension of time and ORDER the State to file its brief by January 6, 2023 . The State may file the same brief in multiple cases, if it so desires, by placing all appellate cause numbers in the style and by filing the brief separately in all cause numbers. Further requests for extensions of time will be disfavored.

_________________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 8th day of December, 2022.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
No. 65769.

#### D. P. Harris Hardware & Mfg. Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 302646-KS, etc. (New York).

*530Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues herein are similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Schmidt Pritchard & Co. et al.*(47 C.C.P.A. 152, C.A.D. 750), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
### Pumice deposits of the Klamath Indian Reservation, Klamath County, Oregon

By: George Walton Walker

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/cir128

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plate:  **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
No. 40411.

#### Protests 936657-G, etc., of Wm. Adams, Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15409 the court dismissed the protests.
# C_2015190EN.01003801.xml

| 8.6.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.6.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/38

---

Action brought on 7 April 2015 — ZZ. v Commission

(Case F-52/15)

(2015/C 190/46)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Blot, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the Commission’s decision to reject the applicant’s application for an extension of his service and a claim for damages with interest in respect of the material harm allegedly suffered and the symbolic sum of EUR 1 as compensation for the non-pecuniary harm alleged.

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision adopted by the Appointing Authority on 25 June 2014 rejecting the applicant’s application for an extension of his service and, accordingly, confirming his automatic retirement on 31 October 2014; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision adopted by the Appointing Authority on 25 June 2014 rejecting the applicant’s application for an extension of his service and, accordingly, confirming his automatic retirement on 31 October 2014;

| — | Annul, in so far as necessary, the decision rejecting his claim, dated 10 December 2014 and served on the applicant on 29 December 2014; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul, in so far as necessary, the decision rejecting his claim, dated 10 December 2014 and served on the applicant on 29 December 2014;

| — | Pay compensation for the material harm suffered by the applicant as a result of the contested decisions; |
| --- | --- |

—

Pay compensation for the material harm suffered by the applicant as a result of the contested decisions;

| — | Award the applicant the symbolic sum of EUR 1 as compensation for his non-pecuniary harm; |
| --- | --- |

—

Award the applicant the symbolic sum of EUR 1 as compensation for his non-pecuniary harm;

| — | Order the defendant to pay all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay all the costs.

---
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-28-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-28-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           9,064
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,479
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      1,146
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                18,209
<PP&E>                                         897,898
<DEPRECIATION>                                 288,746
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 728,551
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           67,514
<BONDS>                                         10,513
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           231
<OTHER-SE>                                     324,511
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   728,551
<SALES>                                        104,009
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               413,510
<CGS>                                           16,147
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  291,421
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                89,011
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              14,319
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,612
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (139)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (139)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.01)
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>              1,000                      
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              AUG-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   FEB-28-1997
<CASH>                                             692
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   20,775
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (821)
<INVENTORY>                                      4,716
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                27,843
<PP&E>                                          85,739
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (32,206)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 105,862
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           31,068
<BONDS>                                         20,155
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,280
<OTHER-SE>                                      23,711
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   105,862
<SALES>                                         47,272
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                47,272
<CGS>                                           28,298
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   43,280
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                14,982
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,662
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,652
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,164
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,488
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,488
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.58
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.58
        

</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 23-0356

______________________________________________________________________________

DONALD AARON HESSER, JR.,

 Petitioner and Appellant

 vs.

STATE OF MONTANA,

 Respondent and Appellee.

______________________________________________________________________________

Order Extending Deadline to File Reply Brief

______________________________________________________________________________

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time to file 

Appellant’s reply brief and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is given an extension of time until

March 1, 2024 to file and serve the reply brief. 

No further extensions will be granted.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

February 1 2024

02/01/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0356
# C_2016156EN.01004002.xml

| 2.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/40

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 March 2016 — Schoeller Corporation v OHIM — Sqope (SCOPE)

(Case T-90/15) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark SCOPE - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2016/C 156/53)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Schoeller Corporation GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: D. van Ackeren, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S. Hanne, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Sqope SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented: M.-C. Simon, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 November 2014 (Case R 2381/2013-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Sqope SA and Schoeller Corporation GmbH.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 21 November 2014 (Case R 2381/2013-1); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 21 November 2014 (Case R 2381/2013-1);

| 2. | Orders OHIM and Sqope SA to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by Schoeller Corporation GmbH. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders OHIM and Sqope SA to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by Schoeller Corporation GmbH.

---

(1)  OJ C 118, 13.4.2015.

1

---