alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

In the Interest of N.V.R., D.A.R., and J.T.R., Children

No. 06

- 18

- 00112

- CV Appeal from the 124th District Court of Gregg County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 2007

- 2400

- B ). M emorandum Opinion del ivered by Chief Justice Morriss, Justice Burgess

and Justice Stevens participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find that the appeal should be dismissed

for want of prosecution. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal.

We note that the a ppellant, William Runnels , has adequately indicated his inability to pay

costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED AUGUST 21, 2019

BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 10.39

                          CREDENCE SYSTEMS CORPORATION
                               215 Fourier Avenue
                               Freemont, CA 94539


                                January 15, 2002


Mr. Fred Hall

Dear Fred:

     Reference is made to your employment offer letter, dated October 1, 2001
(the "Employment Offer Letter"), by and between you and Credence Systems
Corporation (the "Company").

     For good and valuable consideration, receipt of which is hereby
acknowledged, the parties agree that notwithstanding the terms of the Employment
Offer Letter or the relevant stock option agreements, to the extent that you are
terminated "without cause" as described in your Employment Offer Letter, the
final exercise date of any options which you are vested in pursuant to the terms
of the Employment Offer Letter or the relevant stock option agreement on the
date of such termination shall be extended until the earlier of (i) the
                                                     -------
expiration of the option term or (ii) the end of the twelve (12) month period
following the date of such termination.

     Please indicate your acceptance of the foregoing by signing the enclosed
copy of this letter and returning it to the Company.

                                                 Very truly yours,

                                                 /s/ Graham J. Siddall
                                                 ---------------------
                                                 Graham J. Siddall
                                                 Chief Executive Officer and
                                                 Chairman of the Board

ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED:



/s/ Fred Hall
-------------
Fred Hall
Exhibit 32.1
 
  (1)
    
    The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended September 6,
2008 (the Form 10-Q) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Act); and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of the dates and for
the periods referred to in the Form 10-Q.
 /s/ Eric J. FossEric J. FossChairman and Chief Executive OfficerOctober 14, 2008
#### Jean L. MAY, Petitioner-Appellee, Clifford Magee May, Intervenor-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

No. 75-2727.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

May 12, 1977.

*1208John J. Molloy, III, Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, Los Angeles, Cal., argued, for intervenor-appellant May.

Asst. Atty. Gen. Gilbert E. Andrews, Jr., Chief App. Section, F. Arnold Heller, Atty., Tax Court Div., U. S. Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., argued, for respondent.

Walter H. Young, Willis, Butler, Scheifly, Leydorf & Grant, Los Angeles, Cal., argued, for petitioner-appellee May.

Before CHOY and GOODWIN, Circuit Judges, and THOMPSON,* District Judge.

*

 Honorable Bruce R. Thompson, United States District Judge, for the District of Nevada, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM:

Clifford Magee May appeals from the denial by the Tax Court of his motion to intervene in a proceeding initiated by Jean L. May, his former wife, for redetermination of a tax deficiency determined against her.

Intervention in a proceeding before it has been held to be within the sound discretion of the Tax Court. *See Levy Trust v. Commissioner,*341 F.2d 93, 94 (5th Cir. 1965); *Cincinnati Transit, Inc. v. Commissioner,*55 T.C. 879, 883 (1971), *aff’d, 455*F.2d 220, 221 (6th Cir. 1972); *Central Union Trust Co. v. Commissioner,*18 B.T.A. 300, 303 (1929). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(b), where intervention is a matter of discretion and not of right, the denial of a motion to intervene is appealable only where there is a clear abuse of discretion, *Allen Calculators, Inc. v. National Cash Register Co.,*322 U.S. 137, 142, 64 S.Ct. 905, 88 L.Ed. 1188 (1944); *Brennan v. Silvergate Dist. Lodge No. 50,*503 F.2d 800, 803 (9th Cir. 1974); *Van Hoomissen v. Xerox Corp.,*497 F.2d 180, 181 (9th Cir. 1974), and we have been directed to no authority holding that a different principle should apply upon review of a denial by the Tax Court of leave to intervene.

After a careful review of the record, we conclude that the Tax Court did not abuse its discretion in denying said motion, and that, therefore, the denial of the motion to intervene is not appealable. *See Hodgson v. United Mine Workers,*153 U.S.App.D.C. 407, 473 F.2d 118, 126-27 & n. 40 (1972) (under Rule 24(b), whether discretion was abused is treated as a *jurisdictional*question; upon concluding that the district court’s denial was proper, the appellate court will dismiss the appeal rather than affirm); *cf. O’Donnell v. Wien Air Alaska, Inc., 551*F.2d 1141, 1148 (9th Cir. 1977) (federal appellate jurisdiction depends upon determination whether a dispute under the Railway Labor Act is “major” or “minor”).

APPEAL DISMISSED.
1 ... S ee Te x. R. App . P. 47. 4. 

## COURT OFAPPEA LS SE COND DISTRIC TOF TE XAS FORT WORTH NO. 2 - 09 - 28 2- CV ROBERT L . E L L I O T, M . D. , RAN DA L L W RI GH T, APPE L L AN TS M . D . , A N D G EN ERA L SUR G ERY CLI N I C O F GR AP E VI NE V . ED W A RD J. JESI O N EK A N D JO H A N N A A PPELL EES ( JO SI E) JESI O N EK

----- ----- FR O M THE 3 48TH DI STRI CT CO URT O F TARRA NT CO UN TY

----- ----- 

### MEMORANDU M OPI NI ON 1 

### AND J UDGME NT

----- ----- W e h a v e co n side re d “ A p p e l l a n ts R o b e rtL. E l l i o t, M .D ., R a n d a l l W ri g h t, M . D . an d General Surger y Cl i ni c o f

G rape vi ne' s M ot i on to Di sm i ss . ” I ti s t he cou rt ’ s opi ni on t hatt he m ot i on s houl d be granted; the refore, w e d i sm i sst he a p p e a l . S ee T e x . R . A p p . P . 4 2 .1 (a )(1 ), 4 3 .2 (f). C os ts of t he app ea l sh al l be pai d by app el l ants, for w hi ch l etexec ut i on i s s u e . S ee Te x. R. App . P. 43. 4. P E R CU R I AM2

P A N E L : C A Y C E , C .J .; L IV IN G S T O N a n d D A U P H IN O T , J J . DEL I VERE D: Se pte m be r 10, 2009
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2192 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on thiophanate-methyl fungicide 

70% wettable powder. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 25, 2006 

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

referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on thiophanatemethyl fungicide 70% wettable powder. 

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

3 SECTION 1. THIOPHANATE-METHYL FUNGICIDE 70% WET4 TABLE POWDER. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.03.79 of the Har6 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended 

7 by striking ‘‘12/31/2006’’ and inserting ‘‘12/31/2008’’. 

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

9 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 
2 

•S 2192 IS

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ
March 19, 2001

Charles A. Adams
Chairman and President
Portland Brewing Company
2730 NW 31st Avenue
Portland, Oregon  97210

Re: Portland Brewing Company ("Company")

Dear Tony:

Portland Brewing Co. had a term loan payable to the MacTarnahan Limited
Partnership of $2.5 million with a maturity date of April 1, 2001. In February
2001, the Company refinanced the $2.5 million term loan with Western Bank,
secured by the Company's assets and guaranteed by Harmer Mill & Logging Supply
Co., MacTarnahan Limited Partnership, MacTarnahan Family Trust and by me
("Guarantors"). The maturity date of the replacement term loan is August 2,
2001, with an extension of 90-days. The Company expects to place the debt
permanently with a financial institution by September 30, 2001 or pay off the
debt through the raising of additional capital. We are aware there is no
assurance that the Company will be able to obtain permanent financing from a
financial institution or that the Company will be able to raise additional
capital on commercially reasonable terms or at all.

To the extent that the Company is unable to refinance the $2.5 million term loan
with Western Bank by its maturity date, either (a) the Guarantors will support
and guaranty a replacement term loan with Western Bank, which loan will extend
for at least a 12 month period; or (b) MacTarnahan Limited Partnership ("MLP")
will repay or purchase the Western Bank term loan and refinance the loan for at
least a 12 month period with a 5 year amortization at market rates secured by
the assets of the Company and subject to customary financial covenants.

To the extent that the Company incurs working capital deficiencies in 2001, MLP
will provide funding to the Company in the form of debt or equity in an amount
not to exceed $500,000 to remedy cash deficiencies that may be necessary to fund
operations through December 31, 2001.

This agreement is binding and non-cancelable.

Very Truly Yours,

/S/ ROBERT M. MACTARNAHAN
Robert M. MacTarnahan
On Behalf of MacTarnahan Limited Partnership,
Harmer Mill & Logging Co., Robert M. MacTarnahan

Acknowledged:

/S/ CHARLES A. ADAMS
By: Charles A. Adams
Chairman & President
March 22, 2001
Date

Cc:  Jack Wilborn, Arthur Andersen
No. 95-2524

 

Augustine Bailey, Debbie Bailey, *

Laverne Gregory, and *

Merle Johnson, *

*

 Appellants, *

* Appeal from the United States

 v. * District Court for the

 * Eastern District of Arkansas.

Area Agency on Aging of *

Southeast Arkansas, Inc.; * [UNPUBLISHED]

Bobby Ashcraft, in His Individual *

and Official Capacity as a *

Member of Its Board of Directors; *

Wilson Crain, in His Individual *

and Official Capacity as a *

Member of Its Board of Directors; *

Florene Chadick, in Her Individual*

and Official Capacity as a *

Member of Its Board of Directors; *

Nelson Thompson, in His Individual*

and Official Capacity as a *

Member of Its Board of Directors; *

Cary Clark, in His Individual *

and Official Capacity as a *

Member of Its Board of Directors; *

James Bennett, in His Individual *

and Official Capacity as a *

Member of Its Board of Directors; *

Paul Fisher, in His Individual *

and Official Capacity as a *

Member of Its Board of Directors; *

and John Clark, in His Individual *

and Official Capacity as a *

Member of Its Board of Directors, *

*

 Appellees. *

 

Submitted: February 14, 1996 

Filed: March 11, 1996

 
 The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr., United States District 1

Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

-2-

Before BOWMAN, BEAM, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

 

PER CURIAM.

In 1992, the four plaintiffs were fired from their positions as van

drivers for the Area Agency on Aging of Southeast Arkansas. They sued the

agency and its board of directors in federal district court, alleging a

deprivation of constitutional rights by the state. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

On motion, the district court granted summary judgment to the

defendants in mid-1995, holding that there was no state action by the

defendants. The plaintiffs appealed. We have read the briefs, examined

the exhibits, considered the district court record, and heard oral argument

by the parties. Because we discern no error of law in the record, we

affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 1

A true copy.

Attest:

 CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
##### 



Exhibit 32 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 To my knowledge, this Report on Form 10-Q for the nine months ended December 31, 2004 of Central
Bancorp, Inc. (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in this Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the consolidated financial condition and results of operations of Central
Bancorp, Inc. By:
    
    /s/ John D. DohertyJohn D. DohertyChairman, President and Chief Executive OfficerBy:
    
    /s/ Paul S. FeeleyPaul S. FeeleySenior Vice President, Treasurer andChief Financial OfficerDate: February 14, 2005
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

CAINE PELZER, :

:

Petitioner :

:

v. : CIVIL NO. 4:CV-15-222

:

SUPERINTENDENT MAHALLY, : (Judge Brann)

:

Respondent :

ORDER

November 9, 2016

In accordance with the accompanying Memorandum, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED THAT:

1. Petitioner’s unopposed motion requesting the disposition of his

pending habeas corpus petition be stayed (Doc. 16) is

GRANTED.

2. Adjudication of Pelzer’s federal habeas corpus action is

STAYED.

3. Within thirty (30) days of the termination of his state court

proceedings, Petitioner is directed to file a written status report

with this Court detailing the conclusion of his Pennsylvania

1

Case 4:15-cv-00222-MWB Document 20 Filed 11/09/16 Page 1 of 2
state court exhaustion efforts; the status report shall include a

copy of the relevant state court disposition.

4. For administrative purposes only, the Clerk of Court is directed

to mark this matter CLOSED.

BY THE COURT:

 s/ Matthew W. Brann 

Matthew W. Brann

United States District Judge

2

Case 4:15-cv-00222-MWB Document 20 Filed 11/09/16 Page 2 of 2
#### Nesmith *v.*The State Medical Board of Ohio.

*State medical board*— Refusal *to issue license*— Right *of appeal and procedure*— Section *1276, General Code.*

(No. 15963

Decided January 16, 1923.)

Error to the Court of Appeals of Wood county.

*Mr. Benjamin F. James,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. Jonathan E. Ladd,*prosecuting attorney, and *Mr. John G. Price,*attorney general, for defendant in error.

It is ordered and adjudged by this court, that the judgment of the said court of appeals be, and the same hereby is, reversed upon the authority of *Rutledge*v. *State Medical Board,*106 Ohio St., 544, 140 N. E., 132, for the reasons stated in the opinion in that ease; and it is ordered that this cause be remanded to the court of common pleas for further proceedings, and that the court of common pleas be instructed to hear said appealed cause upon its merits.

*Judgment reversed and cause remanded.*

Marshall, C. J., Wanamaker, Robinson, Jones, Matthias, Day and Allen, JJ., concur.
#### Raymond BENITEZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-117.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

Jan. 14, 1970.

Robert W. Rawlins, Public Defender, and Don C. Kilgore, Asst. Public Defender, Tampa, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Morton J. Hanlon, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lakeland, for appellee.

McNULTY, Judge.

This is an appeal from a summary denial of a Rule 1.850, 33 F.S.A., motion in which petitioner alleged that his probation was revoked without notice to him and without opportunity for him to be heard. While revocation of probation proceedings may be conducted on a much more informal basis than a trial, due process requires at least that one whose probation may be revoked be given notice and an opportunity to be heard.1

The record does not refute appellant’s allegations. We therefore reverse and remand for a hearing on the question of the sufficiency of petitioner’s notice and opportunity to be heard when his probation was revoked.

HOBSON, C. J., and LILES, J., concur.

1

. See, *e. g.,*Brill v. State (1947), 159 Fla. 682, 32 So.2d 607; Hooks v. State (Fla.App.2d 1968), 207 So.2d 459; McNeely v. State (Fla.App.2d 1966), 186 So.2d 520; and Phillips v. State (Fla.App.2d 1964), 165 So.2d 246.
#### FOUNDERS INVESTMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. TAYLOR MOBILE HOMES, INC., etc., Respondent.

No. 40942.

Supreme Court of Florida.

April 29, 1971.

Rehearing Denied June 1, 1971.

Certiorari denied. 238 So.2d 116.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

KEVIN WAGNER, et. al., : 4:13-CV-3051

:

:

Plaintiffs, : (Judge Brann)

v. :

:

JULIE A. HOLTZAPPLE, et. al., :

:

Defendants. :

ORDER

April 23, 2015

In accordance with the memorandum issued this date, IT IS HEREBY 

ORDERED THAT: 

1. The Defendants’ respective motions to dismiss are GRANTED IN

PART and DENIED IN PART. ECF Nos. 43 and 44. 

2. The Plaintiff is directed to a file a Third Amended Complaint by May

8, 2015 that ONLY and SPECIFICALLY includes the changes

specified in the instant Memorandum Opinion and Order.

3. The clerk is directed to correct the spelling of Defendant

“Rosboschil” to“Rosbosch.” 

4. An initial case management conference will be scheduled after the

Defendants file answers to the Third Amended Complaint. 

1

Case 4:13-cv-03051-MWB Document 63 Filed 04/23/15 Page 1 of 2
 BY THE COURT: 

/s Matthew W. Brann

Matthew W. Brann 

United States District Judge

2

Case 4:13-cv-03051-MWB Document 63 Filed 04/23/15 Page 2 of 2
|   | (1) | The      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as      applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,  and |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (2) | The      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company      at the dates and for the periodsindicated. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                           |   |                                                                                                    |   |
|------------------------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Date:    May      19, 2009 |        | /s/      Bennet P. Tchaikovsky                                                                          |   |
|                                           |   | Bennet      P. TchaikovskyChief      Financial Officer(Principal      Financial and Accounting Officer) |   |

----
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

LINNET BROOKS, AARON 

BROOKS, MICHAEL LUCY, 

ELIZABETH YODER, and MEGAN 

ABPLANALP on behalf of their minor 

daughters A.B., R.L., and Q.H., 

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

STATE COLLEGE AREA SCHOOL 

DISTRICT, 

 Defendant. 

 No. 4:22-CV-01335 

 (Chief Judge Brann) 

ORDER 

DECEMBER 1, 2022 

In accordance with the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, IT IS 

HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 

3) is GRANTED, and: 

1. Defendant State College Area School District (the “District”) is 

enjoined from taking further action that would preclude Plaintiffs from 

participating in the District’s ice hockey club program. 

2. The District is enjoined from relinquishing any of its Title IX 

responsibilities to any parent-run booster club organizations. 

Case 4:22-cv-01335-MWB Document 28 Filed 12/01/22 Page 1 of 2
3. The District is to take all measures to ensure that Plaintiffs are rostered 

on an ice hockey club team, which includes providing sponsorship to a 

second middle school ice hockey team, if applicable. 

4. The District is to immediately cease any efforts to block, withhold 

permission, or otherwise forbid Plaintiffs from moving forward with 

their efforts to create a second middle school ice hockey team. 

5. The District is to take immediate action to remediate the harm caused 

by its actions, including immediate steps to recruit female students to, 

and promote female participation in, its ice hockey club program. 

6. The Parties shall file a status report with the Court within forty-five (45) 

days from the date of this Order, as to the District’s efforts to comply 

with these directives. 

BY THE COURT: 

s/ Matthew W. Brann 

Matthew W. Brann 

Chief United States District Judge 

Case 4:22-cv-01335-MWB Document 28 Filed 12/01/22 Page 2 of 2
#### MIAMI BAY OAKS SOROPTIMIST HOME FOR THE AGED, INC. v. SMITH.

No. 38901.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Oct. 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 224 So.2d 444.
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-14-00056-CV

ORCA ASSETS, G.P., L.L.C., 

ORCA/ICI DEVELOPMENT, ORCA 

PETROLEUM, LTD., AND ALLEN 

BERRY

APPELLANTS

V.

LOUIS DORFMAN; K.I. HOLDINGS, 

LTD.; SAM MYERS, J.M.D. 

RESOURCES, INC.; BILLY 

COGDELL BOWDEN; BARBARA 

STANDFIELD; STACEY DORFMANKIVOWITZ; JULIA DORFMAN; 

MARK DORFMAN; DAVID PHILLIP 

COOK; CHERYL KING COOK; SAM 

Y. DORFMAN, JR.; PETROHAWK 

PROPERTIES, L.P.; FRANK 

MORAVITS, INDIVIDUALLY AND 

AS TRUSTEE OF THE MORAVITS 

CHILDREN TRUST NO. 1 AND 

MORAVITS CHILDREN TRUST NO. 

2, SHELBY MORAVITS, AND 

JERRY KORTZ

APPELLEES 

NO. 02-14-00057-CV

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., 

AS TRUSTEE OF THE RED CREST 

TRUST

APPELLANT
2

V.

LOUIS DORFMAN; K.I. HOLDINGS, 

LTD.; SAM MYERS, J.M.D. 

RESOURCES, INC.; BILLY 

COGDELL BOWDEN; BARBARA 

STANDFIELD; STACEY DORFMANKIVOWITZ; JULIA DORFMAN; 

MARK DORFMAN; DAVID PHILLIP 

COOK; CHERYL KING COOK; SAM 

Y. DORFMAN, JR.; PETROHAWK 

PROPERTIES, L.P.; FRANK 

MORAVITS, INDIVIDUALLY AND 

AS TRUSTEE OF THE MORAVITS 

CHILDREN TRUST NO. 1 AND 

MORAVITS CHILDREN TRUST NO. 

2, SHELBY MORAVITS, AND 

JERRY KORTZ

APPELLEES 

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

FROM THE 342ND DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NO. 342-259139-12

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

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

We have considered appellants’ joint motions to dismiss their appeals of 

the trial court’s order with respect to appellee Petrohawk Properties, L.P. only. 

We grant both motions and dismiss appellants’ appeals with respect to appellee 

 1

See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
3

Petrohawk Properties, L.P. only, with prejudice. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1), 

43.2(f).

Costs of the appeals shall be paid by the party incurring the same, for 

which let execution issue. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(d).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; MCCOY and MEIER, JJ.

DELIVERED: August 7, 2014