alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### BREAKERS CONDOMINIUM, INC., a Florida corporation not for profit, Bernard Coniglio and Helen Coniglio, his wife, Ernest Deutsch and Marion Deutsch, his wife, William Stuart and Beulah M. Stuart, his wife, individually and collectively, as representatives of a class constituting individual owners of units in the Breakers Condominium, Appellants, v. VAL ZIMMERMAN CORP., a foreign corporation authorized to do business in the State of Florida, August Urbanek and Irene Urbanek, his wife, Kathleen Schmitt as Executrix of the Estate of Joseph L. Schmitt, Deceased, and Kathleen Schmitt, his wife, Co-Op Construction Corporation, a Florida corporation, Collins Construction Corp., a Florida corporation, Charles Micheli, Val Zimmerman and American National Bank and Trust Company of Fort Lauderdale, Appellees.

No. 69-712.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Feb. 19, 1970.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Broward County; John H. Moore, II, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
Dismiss and Opinion Filed May 29, 2014 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-00466-CV 

DALLAS WAYNE SCOTT, Appellant 

V. 

RICHARDSON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, Appellee 

On Appeal from the 193rd Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. TX-07-40323 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Chief Justice Wright and Justices Lang-Miers and Brown 

Opinion by Chief Justice Wright 

By notice of appeal filed April 15, 2014, appellant challenges a September 9, 2008 

judgment. Because the notice of appeal was filed outside any of the time frames listed in rule of 

appellate procedure 26, which governs the time to perfect appeals, we directed appellant to file a 

letter brief explaining how the Court had jurisdiction over the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1,

26.3. Although more than ten days have passed since we requested the letter brief, appellant has 

not filed the brief or otherwise communicated with the Court. 

Our jurisdiction is invoked upon the timely filing of a notice of appeal from a final 

judgment. Lehman v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001); Garza v. Hibernia Nat’l 

Bank, 227 S.W.3d 233, 233 (Tex. App.-–Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.). Generally, the 
 –2– 

deadline to file a notice of appeal runs from the date of judgment. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1; see 

also id. 4.2 (providing that if notice of judgment is not received within twenty days after 

judgment is signed, deadline runs from date notice is received but no later than ninety days from 

signing of judgment). Rule 26.1 provides four time frames for filing a notice of appeal. See id. 

26.1. These time frames are based on the type of judgment or order being appealed and range 

from twenty days in an accelerated appeal to six months in a restricted appeal. See id. 

Additionally, rule 26.3 provides for one fifteen-day extension of time. See id. 26.3. 

 Based on the time frames listed in rule 26, the notice of appeal here, filed more than five 

years after the complained-of judgment, is untimely and fails to invoke our jurisdiction. See 

Garza, 227 S.W.3d 233. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a). 

 

 

140466F.P05 

 

/Carolyn Wright/ 

CAROLYN WRIGHT 

CHIEF JUSTICE 
 –3– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

DALLAS WAYNE SCOTT, Appellant 

No. 05-14-00466-CV V. 

RICHARDSON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL 

DISTRICT, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the 193rd Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. TX-07-40323. 

Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Wright. 

Justices Lang-Miers and Brown 

participating. 

 In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal. 

 We ORDER that appellee Richardson Independent School District recover its costs, if 

any, of this appeal from appellant Dallas Wayne Scott. 

Judgment entered May 29, 2014 

/Carolyn Wright/ 

CAROLYN WRIGHT 

CHIEF JUSTICE
Exhibit 10.8


 


AMENDMENT
NUMBER ONE TO

LICENSING AND SERVICES AGREEMENT


 


This Amendment Number One to Licensing and Services Agreement
dated as of December 18, 2017, by and among Sit Fixed Income Advisors II, LLC (“Sit”) and ETF Managers. Capital LLC
(“ETF Managers Capital”), is made to the Licensing and Services Agreement dated as of January 12, 2015 (the “Agreement”).
Terms defined in the Agreement are used herein as therein defined.


 


WHEREAS, Sit and ETF Managers Capital
desire to amend the Agreement to reflect certain changes to Exhibit A Fee Schedule; and


 


WHEREAS, ETF Managers Capital desires
to retain Sit to continue providing certain services in connection with the operation of Sit Rising Rate Fund (the “Fund”),
a series of the ETF Managers Group Commodity Trust I, which is a Delaware series trust; and


 


WHEREAS, Sit is willing to continue
providing such services tinder the terms of the Agreement as amended herein; and


 


WHEREAS, ETF Managers Capital desires
to continue licensing the use of a model portfolio that is owned, maintained and published by Sit (the “Benchmark”);
and


 


WHEREAS, Sit is willing to license
the use of the Benchmark under the terms of this Agreement;


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration
of the promises and mutual covenants hereinafter contained, the parties agree as follows:


 


1.          Effective
on January 1, 2018 exhibit A of the Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the attached Amended Exhibit
A.


 


2.          Except
as modified hereby, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment has been executed by duly
authorized representatives of the parties hereto as the day, month, and year first written above.


 


	ETF Manager’s Capital LLC	 
	 	 	 
	By:	/s/ Samuel Masucci	 
	 	Samuel Masucci	 
	 	Chief Executive Officer	 
	 	 	 
	Sit Fixed Income Advisors II, LLC	 
	 	 	 
	By:	/s/ Paul E. Rasmussen	 
	 	Paul E. Rasmussen	 
	 	Vice President	 


 




     


     


    

 


LICENSING
AND SERVICES AGREEMENT


 


Amended Exhibit A


 


Fee Schedule


 


In payment for the Services to be rendered
by Sit, the Fund shall pay to Sit a fee, which fee shall be paid to Sit on a monthly basis not later than the fifteenth business
day of the month following the month in which said services were rendered. The fee payable by the Fund shall be 0.20%:per annum
of the average of the Fund’s net asset value as determined as at the close of each business day of the month pursuant to
the currently effective Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information of the Fund.


 






    	 	A-1
Jonathan Hill

JETBLUE

Cooley LLP

1299 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Suite 700

Washington, D.C. 20004

jhill@cooley.com

perkmann@cooley.com

John Mietus

CENTURION

Law Office of John Mietus

6701 Democracy Boulevard

Suite 300

Bethesda, MD 20817

john@mietuslaw.com

Stephen Lachter

FRONTIER

Cozen O'Connor

The Army & Navy Club Building

1627 I Street, N.W.

Suite 1100

Washington, D.C. 20006

slachter@cozen.com

John Richardson

Joan Canny

AMERIJET INTERNATIONAL

John L.Richardson, PLLC

555 l3th Street, N.W.

# 420W

Washington, D.C. 20004

jrichardson@johnlrichardson.com

jcanny@amerijet.com

Nancy Sparks

FEDERAL EXPRESS

1101 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Suite 600

Washington, D.C. 20004

nssparks@fedex.com

Robert Wirick

AMERICANIUS AIRWA YS

PO Box 619619, MD 5635

DFW Airport, TX 75261

robert. wirick@aa.com

Alexander Vander Bellen

Chris Walker

DELTA AIR LINES

1275 K Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20005

sascha.vanderbellen@delta.com

chris. walker@delta.com

Marshall S. Sinick

ALASKA

Squire, Sanders & Dempsey

1201 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20004

msinick@ssd.com

Dan Weiss

Stephen Morrissey

CONTINENTALIUNITED

Dept. HQSGV

P.O. Box 4607

Houston, TX 77210-4607

dan. weiss@united.com

steve.morrissey@united.com

Leslie C. Abbott

AIRTRAN/SOUTHWEST

1901 L Street, N.W.

Suite 640

Washington, D.C. 20036

leslie.abbott@wnco.com

I hereby certify that on December 5, 2014, a copy of the foregoing Application of

Redwings, S.A. de C.V. was served via email to the following persons:

Certificate of Service
# Dividends

Page &P of &N

# Footnotes
#### Robert Lee ADDISON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 2329.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Jan. 15, 1971.

Robert G. Ferrell, III, Public Defender, Cocoa, and Ned N. Julian, Jr., Asst. Public Defender, Sanford, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Charles W. Musgrove, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

OWEN, Judge.

Appellant was convicted on two counts of uttering a forgery. The sole question on this appeal is whether the court erred in admitting certain exhibits into evidence over defendant’s objection on the grounds that the same were obtained by the state through an illegal search and seizure.

Appellant, 19 years of age, lived with his grandmother in her home. One bedroom was occupied exclusively by appellant, but as a guest rather than as a tenant. Law enforcement officers searched this *239room without a warrant and without appellant’s consent, but with the consent of the owner of the premises, appellant’s grandmother. This search produced the exhibits to which objection was made.

The search, having been made with the consent of the owner of the premises, was lawful. Rivers v. State, Fla. 1969, 226 So. 2d 337; Tomlinson v. State, 1937, 129 Fla. 658, 176 So. 543; Rhome v. State, Fla.App. 1969, 222 So.2d 431;. Myrick v. State, Fla. App.1965, 177 So.2d 845. The judgment is affirmed.

CROSS, C. J., and WALDEN, J., concur.
# L_2006286DE.01002701.xml

| 17.10.2006 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 286/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.10.2006

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 286/27

---

Berichtigung der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 883/2005 der Kommission vom 10. Juni 2005 zur Änderung der Verordnung (EWG) Nr. 2454/93 mit Durchführungsvorschriften zu der Verordnung (EWG) Nr. 2913/92 des Rates zur Festlegung des Zollkodex der Gemeinschaften

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 148 vom 11. Juni 2005
  )

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 148 vom 11. Juni 2005

| 1. | Seite 9, Artikel 1, Nummer 31: |
| --- | --- |

1.

Seite 9, Artikel 1, Nummer 31:

anstatt:

„... Anhang III ...“

muss es heißen:

„... Anhang V ...“.

| 2. | Seite 9, Artikel 1, Nummer 33: |
| --- | --- |

2.

Seite 9, Artikel 1, Nummer 33:

anstatt:

„... Anhang IV ...“

muss es heißen:

„... Anhang VI ...“.

| 3. | Seite 13, Anhang IV, Verpackungscodes: |
| --- | --- |

3.

Seite 13, Anhang IV, Verpackungscodes:

anstatt:

„Beutel, Tasche ... HB“

muss es heißen:

„Beutel, Tasche ... PO“.

| 4. | Seite 22, Anhang V, 2. Absatz, letztes Wort: |
| --- | --- |

4.

Seite 22, Anhang V, 2. Absatz, letztes Wort:

anstatt:

„Zollstelle“

muss es heißen:

„Zentralstelle“.

| 5. | Seite 23, Anhang VI, 2. Absatz, drittletztes Wort: |
| --- | --- |

5.

Seite 23, Anhang VI, 2. Absatz, drittletztes Wort:

anstatt:

„Antrag“

muss es heißen:

„Anspruch“.

---
Exhibit 23.2





March 25, 2013









Consent of Independent Engineers



We
refer to our report entitled “Evaluation of the P&NG Reserves of Advantage Oil & Gas Ltd. (As of December 31, 2012)”,
dated February 28, 2013 (the “Report”).



We
hereby consent to the use of our name and references to excerpts from the Report in the Annual Report on Form 40-F of Advantage
Oil & Gas Ltd. for the year ended December 31, 2012.







| | Sincerely,                
| | --------------------------
| |                           
| | SPROULE ASSOCIATES LIMITED
| |                           
| | By:                       
| |                           
| |
#### Ronald L. ERVIN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-479.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

Sept. 9, 1969.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Lana Fisher HORTON and O. T. Anderson v. Corby FISHER and Mrs. Jean Fisher.

No. 45430.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Oct. 20, 1969.

J. K. Henry, Union, for appellants.

Tom S. Lee, Thomas D. Lee, Forest, for appellees.

SMITH, Justice:

This is an effort on the part of Lana Fisher Horton and O. T. Anderson to appeal from a decree of the Chancery Court of Scott County. It is opposed by appellees, Corby Fisher and Jean Fisher, because the decree sought to he appealed from is interlocutory and the appeal falls within none of the categories in which interlocutory appeals may be authorized, as enumerated in Mississippi Code 1942 Annotated section 1148 (1956). Here no appeal was authorized by the chancellor.

The decree in question merely permitted appellees to intervene as parties in a pending child custody suit and granted appellants time within which to file an answer, awarding temporary custody of the child pending final hearing.

The appeal is premature and cannot be entertained.

Appeal dismissed.

GILLESPIE, P. J., and PATTERSON, INZER and ROBERTSON, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                   EXHIBIT 11.01

                              ESS TECHNOLOGY, INC.

                      COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER SHARE
                    (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE AMOUNTS)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                  YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31,
                                                              -------------------------------
                                                                 1997        1998       1999
                                                               --------    --------    -------
<S>                                                            <C>         <C>         <C>
Weighted average common shares..............................     39,953      40,955     40,640
Weighted average incremental common equivalent shares:
  Common stock(2)...........................................         --          --      4,985
                                                               --------    --------    -------
Total weighted average common and common equivalent
  shares....................................................     39,593      40,955     45,625
                                                               ========    ========    =======
Net income (loss)...........................................   $(10,866)   $(28,016)   $40,105
                                                               ========    ========    =======
Net income (loss) per share.................................   $  (0.27)   $  (0.68)   $  0.88
                                                               ========    ========    =======
</TABLE>

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

(1) This Exhibit should be read in conjunction with Note 1 of Notes to
    Consolidated Financial Statements.

(2) Earnings per share is computed using the weighted average number of common
    and common equivalent shares ("weighted average shares") outstanding during
    the period. Common equivalent shares consist of the Company's common stock
    issuable upon exercise of stock options (using the treasury stock method),
    except when antidilutive.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**



**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 on Form 10-K for the period ended April 30, 2014 of Kashin, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Transition Report"), I, Carl Maybin, President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|1. | The Annual Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and                
|-- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   |                                                                                                                                                            
|2. | The information contained in this Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.





|                      |    |                                                                                    | 
|--------------------- | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|Date: August 24, 2015 | By | */s/ Carl Maybin*                                                                  | 
|                      |    | Carl Maybin                                                                        | 
|                      |    | President, Principal Executive Officer,   Principal Financial Officer and Director | 
|                      |    |                                                                                    |
exv10w33



 



EXHIBIT 10.33




NORTHERN TELECOM LIMITED

MEETING OF THE NOMINATING COMMITTEE

DECEMBER 16, 1993


E X T R A C T


     RESOLVED, That the remuneration provided for in these resolutions shall be
paid quarterly, in arrears, in U.S. currency or, at the request of a Director,
in the Canadian dollar equivalent thereof;


     RESOLVED, That commencing January 1, 1994 each Director of Northern
Telecom Limited who ceases to hold office as such on or after January 1, 1994,
other than for reasons which in the opinion of the Board of Directors
constitutes misfeasance, shall be paid base retirement compensation by the
Corporation at the rate of 75 percent of US$27,500 or, of the Board retainer
fee payable when the Director so ceases to hold office as such, whichever is
greater, plus indexed retirement compensation at the rate of 56.25% of any
increment in the Board retainer fee payable from time to time by the
Corporation over the amount serving for computation of the Director’s base
retirement compensation;


     RESOLVED, That such retirement compensation be paid, during the lifetime
of such Director or their surviving spouse, for the period equal to the
duration of such Director’s tenure as a member of the Board of Directors of the
Corporation or ten (10) years, whichever may be the lesser; provided, however,
that such retirement compensation shall not be paid to any Director of the
Corporation who, immediately prior to the date on which such Director ceases to
hold office as such, was a salaried employee of the Corporation or of any of
its subsidiaries, or who was eligible or entitled to the payment of a monthly
pension or other retirement allowance under a pension plan or like arrangement
established or maintained by the Corporation or by any of its subsidiaries;


 






 


NORTHERN TELECOM LIMITED

MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS

FEBRUARY 29, 1996


E X T R A C T


     RESOLVED, That effective January 1, 1996, any individual elected as a
Director of the Corporation for the first time shall not be entitled to be paid
any retirement compensation by the Corporation; and


     RESOLVED, That the resolutions with respect to remuneration previously
adopted by the Board of Directors are hereby repealed to the extent
inconsistent with the preceding resolutions; provided, for greater certainty,
that the resolutions adopted December 16, 1993 with respect to retirement
compensation payable to Directors of the Corporation shall continue to apply to
Directors elected prior to December 31, 1995.
#### City of Washington C. H. et al. *v.*Jackson et al.

(Decided October *9,*1906.)

Error to Circuit Court of Fayette County:

*Messrs. Harper & Harper; Mr. H. Jones; Mr. John Logan*and *Mr. Lee Rankin,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Messrs. Post & Reid; Mr. H. H. Sanderson*and *Mr. Mills Gardner,*for defendants in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Shauck, C. J., Price, Crew, Summers, Spear and Davis, JJ., concur.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-20728 Summary Calendar

DAVID S. SEFTON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus
MATHEW KRYSTOF, Individually doing business as World Wide Financial; RICHARD KRYSTOF; JAMES MCCREARY; NANNETTE NICOLE KRYSTOF,

Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-99-CV-2753

-------------------- January 13, 2003

Before DAVIS, WIENER, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Plaintiff-Appellant David Sefton appeals the dismissal of his

suit for lack of jurisdiction under F E D

. R. C IV

. P. 12 (b)(1).

Magistrate judges are empowered to dismi ss complaints under that

rule, but this power is severely circumscribed “when the basis of

jurisdiction is also an element in the plaintiff’s federal cause of

action. W illiamson v. Tucker
, 645 F.2 d 404, 415 (5th Cir. 1981)(quoting Bell v. Hood , 327 U.S. 678, 685 (1946)). The question

whether Sefton registered the photogr aphs at issue prior to

initiating his suit for copyright infringement is central to both

jurisdiction and the viability of his federal copyright claim. S ee

Geoscan, Inc. of Tx. v. Geotrace Techs. , Inc. , 226 F.3d 387, 393

(5th Cir. 2000). When that is the case, jurisdiction exists and

the challenge to jurisdiction should be treated as a direct attack

on the merits of the plaintiff’s case. B ell
, 327 U.S. at 682.

Sefton’s copyright claims against the defendants fall squarely

within the rule of Bell ; as such, jurisdiction should have been

addressed on the merits under F ED

. R. C IV

. P. 12(b)(6) (for failure

to state a claim) or F ED

. R. C IV

. P. 56 (summary judgment). S ee

Williamson , 645 F. 2d at 415-16. The dismissal without prejudice

under F ED

. R. C IV

. P. 12(b)(1) is vacated and the case remanded for

further consideration consistent with this analysis.

VACATED and REMANDED.
#### Malcolm G. MacNEILL, Petitioner, v. Maston G. O’NEAL, Jr., Respondent.

No. 40181.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Jan. 20, 1971.

Rehearing Denied March 22, 1971.

Certiorari denied. 238 So.2d 648.

ROBERTS, C. J., and CARLTON, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur; DREW, J., retired, dissents.