alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Filed 4/8/98 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

1998 ND 73

State of North Dakota,Plaintiff and Appellee

v.

Philip Wruck,Defendant and Appellant

Criminal No. 970366

Appeal from the District Court for Burleigh County, South Central Judicial District, the Honorable Burt L. Riskedahl, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Rick L. Volk, Assistant State’s Attorney, Courthouse, 514 East Thayer, Bismarck, N.D. 58501, for plaintiff and appellee.

Gregory I. Runge, Suite A, 418 East Rosser Avenue, Bismarck, N.D. 58501, for defendant and appellant.

State v. Wruck

Criminal No. 970366

Per Curiam.

[¶1]Philip Wruck appeals from a criminal judgment for possession of marijuana with intent to deliver entered under N.D.R.Crim.P. 11(a)(2).  “[W]hen a policeman has made a lawful custodial arrest of the occupant of an automobile, he may, as a contemporaneous incident of that arrest, search the passenger compartment of that automobile.”  New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454, 460 (1981) (footnotes omitted).  Because “the justification for the search is not that the arrestee has no privacy interest in the container, but that the lawful custodial arrest justifies the infringement of any privacy interest the arrestee may have,” Belton at 461, third-party ownership of an automobile does not change the bright-line rule established in Belton, allowing passenger compartment searches incident to arrest.  See, e.g., Staten v. United States, 562 A.2d 90 (D.C. 1989).  We affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4) and (7).

[¶2]Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Dale V. Sandstrom

William A. Neumann

Mary Muehlen Maring

Herbert L. Meschke
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 4.21

                            CERTIFICATE OF FORMATION

                                       OF

                           CAPITAL ONE CAPITAL IV, LLC

     This Certificate of Formation of Capital One Capital IV, LLC (the
"Company"), dated as of January __, 2002, has been duly executed and is being
filed by Bernard J. Kelley, as an authorized person, to form a limited liability
company under the Delaware Limited Liability Company Act (6 Del. C. (S)18-101,
                                                            -------
et seq.), as amended from time to time.
-- ---

     FIRST. The name of the limited liability company formed hereby is Capital
One Capital IV, LLC.

     SECOND. The address of the registered office of the Company in the State of
Delaware is c/o The Corporation Trust Company, Corporation Trust Center, 1209
Orange Street, Wilmington, New Castle County, Delaware 19801.

     THIRD. The name and address of the registered agent for service of process
on the Company in the State of Delaware are The Corporation Trust Company,
Corporation Trust Center, 1209 Orange Street, Wilmington, New Castle County,
Delaware 19801.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned authorized person has executed this
Certificate of Formation as of the date first above written.


                                         /s/ Bernard J. Kelley
                                        -----------------------------
                                        Name: Bernard J. Kelley
                                        Authorized Person
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

CARLOS J. SANTOS, )

)

Plaintiff, ) 

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 05-313 Erie

)

JAMES F. SHERMAN, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

AND NOW, this 30th day of November, 2005, and upon consideration of the Plaintiff, 

Carlos J. Santos’ Appeal of Magistrate Judge Susan Paradise Baxter’s oral Report and

Recommendation entered on the record on November 8, 2005 [Doc. No. 2] recommending that

his Motion for Preliminary Injunction [Doc. No. 1] be denied, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Appeal [Doc. No. 3] is DENIED, and the oral Report

and Recommendation is adopted as the opinion of the Court. 

s/ Sean J. McLaughlin

United States District Judge

cc: All parties of record

Susan Paradise Baxter, U.S. Magistrate Judge 

Case 1:05-cv-00313-SJM-SPB Document 8 Filed 11/30/05 Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      Exhibit 23



                         Independent Auditors' Consent
                         -----------------------------



The Board of Directors
International Imaging Materials, Inc.:


We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No. 33-
71716) on Form S-8 of International Imaging Materials, Inc. of our reports dated
April 23, 1997, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of International
Imaging Materials, Inc. and subsidiaries as of March 31, 1997 and 1996, and the
related consolidated statements of income, stockholders' equity and cash flows
for each of the years in the three-year period ended March 31, 1997, and related
schedule, which reports appear in or are incorporated by reference in the March
31, 1997 annual report on Form 10-K of International Imaging Materials, Inc.



                                           /s/ KPMG Peat Marwick LLP
                                   -----------------------------------------
                                          KPMG Peat Marwick LLP



Buffalo, New York
July 28, 1997
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 16, 2014

N o. 04

- 14

- 00194

- CV

DTND SIERRA INVESTMENTS, LLC

,

Appellant

v.

COMPASS BANK

, Appellee

From the 288th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013

- CI

- 18326

Honorable John D. Gabrie l, Jr., Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Sitting: Rebeca Martinez, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

This appeal from the trial court’s order awarding sanctions is set for submission before a panel of this court on November 5, 2014. The clerk’s record indicates that court reporter Yvonne

O’Bar took record s of the December 6, 2013 hearing on appellee’s motion for sanctions and the subsequent hearing on appellant’s motion for reconsider ation. Appellant’s written request to Ms. O’Bar for the record asked her to prepare “the transcription of the above styled district case.” However, Ms. O’Bar filed only a record of the post

- trial hearing and did not file a record of the
December 6, 2013 sanctions hearing

.

I t appears to the court that a relev ant portion of the reporter’s record has been omitted and supplementation of the record is necessary. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 34.6(d). We therefore order appellant to file written proof in this court by October 27, 2014 that the reporter’s fee for preparation of the supplemental record has been paid

. If appellant fails to file such proof within the time provided, the court will only consider those issues or points raised in app ellant’s brief that do not require a reporter’ s record of the sanctions hearing for a decision. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 37.3(c). If appellant timely pays the court reporter’s fee , we order court reporter Yvonne

O’Bar to file a record of the December 6, 2013 hearing by November 5, 2014

.The court will not grant appellant or the court reporter an extension of time absent a

showing of extraordinary circumstances. The parties are further advised that no supplemental briefing will be sough t.

It is so ORDERED on October 16, 2014.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO:

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                          82,900
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  253,600
<ALLOWANCES>                                    21,200
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               506,200
<PP&E>                                       2,087,600
<DEPRECIATION>                                 767,400
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,647,900
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          487,700
<BONDS>                                        892,400
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,745,700
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,647,900
<SALES>                                        108,300
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,618,600
<CGS>                                          141,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,505,800
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 8,800
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              13,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                245,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   113,100
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            131,900
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   131,900
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.27
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.27
        

</TABLE>
1 

### Medina, Dayana

From: Medina, Dayana

Sent: Monday, August 04, 2014 5:27 PM

To: Reitter, Annabeth

Subject: RE: Domtar Ashdown Mill Call Agenda

Attachments: Domtar_questions.docx

Hi Annabeth,

For the fourth bulletpoint on the agenda, I’ve attached a file with some questions we have regarding the information

you have provided. We’ll discuss these tomorrow during the call, but I thought it might be helpful if I shared these in

writing as well.

Thanks,

Dayana Medina

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6

Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division

Air Planning Section (6PD

‐ L)

214

‐ 665

‐ 7241

From: Reitter, Annabeth [mailto:Annabeth.Reitter@domtar.com]

Sent: Monday, August 04, 2014 3:39 PM

To: Donaldson, Guy; Feldman, Michael; Nann, Barbara; Medina, Dayana; Crouch, Kelley; Jeremy Jewell

(jjewell@trinityconsultants.com); 'MThimke@foley.com'; Grygotis, Bob; Zuercher, Barry

Subject: Domtar Ashdown Mill Call Agenda

To All:

Attached is an agenda for the conference call tomorrow morning with EPA Region 6 to review the Domtar Ashdown Mill

Section 114 responses. Please let me know if there are any additions or adjustments needed to the agenda.

Looking forward to the discussion tomorrow.

Annabeth

Annabeth Reitter

Corporate Manager, Environmental Regulation

T 715-886-7785 | C 715-459-9257

The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the co rrect file and location.

Domta r

301 Point Basse Avenue

Nekoosa, WI 54457

Domtar reminds you to print responsibly. Learn more about paper as a sustainable choice at paperbecause.com

This email is for the exclusive us e of the addressee and is subject to Domtar Confidentiality Notice.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.3

November 15, 2001


Seamus McGill
c/o WMS Industries Inc.
800 South Northpoint Blvd.
Waukegan, IL 60085

Dear Mr. McGill:

Reference is made to your employment agreement, dated as of February 1, 2001, as
amended (the "Employment Agreement"), between WMS Gaming Inc. (the
"Corporation") and you, and to the employee stock options currently held by you
described on Schedule A attached hereto (the "Existing Options").

This letter reflects our agreement to amend the Employment Agreement and the
Existing Options as set forth below. Capitalized terms used but not defined in
this amendment shall have the definitions given to them in the Employment
Agreement.

In the event of a Change of Control of the Corporation, or if any person or
entity or group of affiliated persons or entities who are not the owners of at
least 15% of the outstanding shares of voting securities of the Corporation on
the date hereof acquires more than 25% of the outstanding shares of the
Corporation's voting securities (each such event being an "Accelerated Vesting
Event"), all unexpired Existing Options owned by Executive on the date of the
Accelerated Vesting Event shall, if unvested, vest fully on the date of the
Accelerated Vesting Event notwithstanding any vesting provisions of such
options. All options hereafter granted to Executive by the Corporation shall
provide for substantially similar accelerated vesting.

In all other respects, the Employment Agreement and the Existing Options are
hereby confirmed and in full force and effect.

Please indicate your agreement to the foregoing by signing this letter in the
space provided below.

Very truly yours,
WMS GAMING INC.


/s/ Orrin J. Edidin
Orrin J. Edidin
Executive Vice President, Secretary,
Chief Operating Officer and General Counsel


                                                     ACCEPTED AND AGREED TO:


                                                     /s/ Seamus McGill
                                                     ---------------------------
                                                     Seamus McGill
EXHIBIT 32.2

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 Annual Report of TC Global, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for
the fiscal year ended March 29, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 29, 2009 (the Report), I, Andrew M. Wynne, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (principal accounting officer) of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



| | (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 Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                         
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                         
|/S/    ANDREW M.
WYNNE                                                   
|Andrew M. Wynne                                                          
|Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (principal accounting officer)
|June 29, 2009
**Exhibit 10.11.1**
**AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT**
     THIS AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”) is made the 15thday of November, 2003, by and between ENCORE MEDICAL CORPORATION, a Delawarecorporation, with its principal office located at 9800 Metric Boulevard,Austin, Texas 78758 (the “Company”) and PAUL D. CHAPMAN, an individual residingat 1006 Hanover Street, Chattanooga, TN 37405 (the “Employee”).
     WHEREAS, the Employee and the Company entered into an Employment Agreementdated February 8, 2002 (the “Agreement”);
     WHEREAS, the Employee and the Company desire that there be certain changesmade with respect to the Agreement; and
     WHEREAS, the Employee and the Company want to memorialize in thisAmendment their agreements regarding such changes to the Agreement.
     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and other mutual promisesand covenants contained in this Amendment and for other good and valuableconsideration, the receipt and adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged, theparties, intending legally to be bound, agree as follows:
1. The term of the Agreement is hereby extended to December 31,2006. 2. Except as specifically changed by this Amendment, all otherterms and provisions of the Agreement shall remain in full force andeffect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to be executed byits duly authorized officer and the Employee has hereto set his/her hand asof the date and year first above written.       **COMPANY:**       ENCORE MEDICAL CORPORATION      By: /s/ Kenneth W. Davidson      Kenneth W. Davidson, Chief Executive Officer       **EMPLOYEE:**       /s/ Paul D. Chapman    PAUL D. CHAPMAN
## Draft Proposal E-7

This concept has been developed by the DOE Building Energy Codes Program (BECP) as a possible code
change proposal to the Commercial provisions of the 2012 International Existing Buildings Code (IEBC).

Interested parties are asked to submit any and all comments on DOE's initial concepts and draft code
change proposals. For instructions on submitting comments, visit:

www.energycodes.gov/deve lopment/iebc_concepts



## Repair Energy Requirements (E-7)

Objective: Require equipment installed during repairs to meet the provisions of the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) and insulation to be upgraded to current 2012 IECC requirements when structural components are exposed.

Suggested Code Change Proposal

Add new Sections 610, 610.1, and 610.2 as follows:

610 ENERGY EFFICIENCY

610.1 General. Repairs to the building thermal envelope, mechanical systems, water heating systems, electrical systems and lighting systems shall meet the provisions of the International Energy Conservation Code that are applicable to the repair(s) being

undertaken.

610.2 Building Thermal Envelope. Where repairs are made to an assembly that is part of the building thermal envelope on the exterior of the building and the structural components of the entire assembly are exposed . insulation meeting the provisions of the IECC for that assembly shall be installed prio r to application of the exterior of the building. Addition of new fenestration or repl acement of existing fenestration shall be in

accordance with Section 406.

Reason: Forty percent of U.S. energy use and seventy percent of U.S. electrical use are associated with existing buildings. As such, existing buildings represent a significant opportunity to save energy, reduce operating costs, and enhance the environment. Section 610 of the International Existing Buildings Code (IEBC) currently provides no guidance on energy efficiency, nor does it reference the 2012 IECC. However, by definition, there are instances in which repairs can and should include consideration of energy efficiency.

Cost Impact: There will be an increase in cost to the degree that repairs that previously were not required to meet the energy code will now be required to meet the energy code.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                          <C>            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                12-MOS         12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>            DEC-31-1999    DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                 DEC-31-1999    DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                       $195,773       $267,653
<SECURITIES>                 $0             $0
<RECEIVABLES>                $16,410,660    $13,252,678
<ALLOWANCES>                 $20,000        $10,000
<INVENTORY>                  $0             $0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>             $3,245,158     $723,985
<PP&E>                       $11,050        $5,171
<DEPRECIATION>               $4,078         $1,184
<TOTAL-ASSETS>               $16,619,985    $13,538,690
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>        $13,731,699    $10,914,874
<BONDS>                      $0             $0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>        $0             $0
<PREFERRED>                  $0             $0
<COMMON>                     $1,000,000     $1,000,000
<OTHER-SE>                   $77,919        $44,599
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY> $16,619,985    $13,538,690
<SALES>                      $0             $0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>             $1,230,262     $1,004,731
<CGS>                        $0             $0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                $1,155,576     $940,947
<OTHER-EXPENSES>             $0             $0
<LOSS-PROVISION>             $10,000        $10,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>           $822,298       $665,246
<INCOME-PRETAX>              $64,686        $53,784
<INCOME-TAX>                 $31,366        $23,526
<INCOME-CONTINUING>          $0             $0
<DISCONTINUED>               $0             $0
<EXTRAORDINARY>              $0             $0
<CHANGES>                    $0             $0
<NET-INCOME>                 $33,320        $30,258
<EPS-BASIC>                $0.33          $0.30
<EPS-DILUTED>                $0.33          $0.30


</TABLE>
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit

__________________________ 

LARRY J. CANTY, 

Claimant-Appellant,

v.

Eric K. Shinseki, SECRETARY OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS,

Respondent-Appellee.

__________________________ 

2013-7053

__________________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 11-1521, Judge William A. Moorman. 

__________________________ 

Before RADER, Chief Judge, DYK and WALLACH, Circuit 

Judges. 

PER CURIAM. 

O R D E R

On February 11, 2013 order, the court directed the 

parties to show cause why this appeal should not be 

dismissed as untimely. Larry J. Canty has not responded 

to the order. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs responds. 

Case: 13-7053 Document: 8 Page: 1 Filed: 04/25/2013
LARRY CANTY v. SHINSEKI 2

On November 7, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims entered judgment in Canty’s 

case. The court received Canty’s notice of appeal on 

January 16, 2013, 70 days after the date of judgment. 

To be timely, a notice of appeal must be received by 

the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims within 60 days 

of the entry of judgment. See 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a); 28 

U.S.C. § 2107(b); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1). The statutory 

deadline for taking an appeal to this court is jurisdictional, mandatory, and cannot be waived. See Bowles v. 

Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007); see also Henderson v. 

Shinseki, 131 S. Ct. 1197, 1204-05 (2011) (the language of 

Section 7292(a) “clearly signals an intent” to impose the 

same jurisdictional restrictions on an appeal from the 

Veterans Court to the Federal Circuit as imposed on 

appeals from a district court to a court of appeals). Because Canty’s appeal as to the underlying judgment was 

filed outside of the statutory deadline for taking an appeal 

to this court, we must dismiss the appeal

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

(1) The appeal is dismissed. 

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs. 

FOR THE COURT

 /s/ Jan Horbaly 

 Jan Horbaly

Clerk

s26

Case: 13-7053 Document: 8 Page: 2 Filed: 04/25/2013
#### Sam MOKSEL, Appellant, v. HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY CO., a Foreign Corporation, Appellee.

No. 76-1947.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Nov. 8, 1977.

Stabinski, Funt, Tucker & Levine and Norman D. Funt, Miami, for appellant.

Wicker, Smith, Blomqvist, Davant, McMath, Tutan & O’Hara and Richard A. Sherman, Miami, for appellee.

Before HAVERFIELD, HUBBART and KEHOE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See *Board of County Com’rs v. F. A. Sebring Realty Co.,*63 So.2d 256, 258 (Fla.1953) and 2 Fla.Jur. Appeals § 346 (1963) and cases cited therein.