alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Barbara Ann STETZLER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 68-305.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 5, 1971.

Pozen, Gold & Gold, Miami, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Harold Mendelow, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before PEARSON, C. J., and HENDRY, J., and LOPEZ, AQUILINO, Jr., Associate Judge.

ORDER ON MANDATE

PER CURIAM.

WHEREAS, the judgment of this court was entered on June 24, 1969 (226 So.2d 18) reversing the judgment of the Circuit Court for Dade County, Florida, in the above styled cause; and

WHEREAS, on review of this court’s judgment by certiorari, the Supreme Court of Florida, by its opinion and judgment filed October 21, 1970 (240 So.2d 633) and mandate dated November 30, 1970 now lodged in this court, quashed this court’s judgment of reversal with directions to reinstate the judgment and sentence;

NOW, THEREFORE, It is Ordered that the mandate of this court heretofore issued in this cause on September 9, 1969 is withdrawn, the opinion and judgment of this court filed June 24, 1969 is vacated, the said opinion and judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida is herewith made the opinion and judgment of this court and the judgment and sentence of the circuit court appealed from herein is reinstated and affirmed. Costs allowed shall be taxed in the circuit court. (Rule 3.16(b) F.A.R.), 32 F.S.A.
Order filed December 29, 2020 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-20-00791-CV

____________

GALVAN, THOMAS (D/B/A TOM'S TRUCKING), Appellant

V.

AMISTAD GROUP, LLC, Appellee

On Appeal from the 234th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2020-13222

O R D E R

The notice of appeal in this case was filed November 20, 2020. To date, the 

filing fee of $205.00 has not been paid. No evidence that appellant is excused by 

statute or the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure from paying costs has been filed. 

See Tex. R. App. P. 5. 

Appellant is ordered to pay the filing fee in the amount of $205.00 to the clerk 

of this court on or before January 8, 2021. See Tex. R. App. P. 5. If appellant fails 

to timely pay the filing fee, the appeal will be dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Christopher, Wise, and Hassan.
Opinion filed March 24, 2011



### In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

__________



### No. 11

- 10

- 00350

- CV

__________

MARC ALLEN MASON , Appellant

V.

CHARLES H. WHEELER ET AL , Appellee s

On Appeal from the 106 th District Court

Dawson County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 10

- 06

- 18395

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Marc Allen Mason filed a pro se appeal challenging two orders dismissing his claims as

to several of the defendants

. The orders do not purport t o be final or appealable

. The clerk of
this court wrote Mason and informed him that it did not appear that we had jurisdiction in this
case because there was no final judgment disposing of all parties. We requested that Mason
respond and show gr ounds for continuing the appeal . We also notified him that the appeal may
be dismissed pursuant to T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42

. See Rule 42.3.2

Mason has filed a response in which he acknowledges that his claims against some of the
defendants remain pendin g in th e trial court. Absent a n order of severance or orders disposing of
all claims against all parties to this lawsuit, we have no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal

. U nless specifically authorized by statute, appeals may be taken only from final judgments. Tex.
A & M Univ. Sys. v. Koseoglu , 233 S.W.3d 835, 840

- 41 (Tex. 2007); Lehmann v. Har

- Con

Corp. , 39 S.W.3d 191 (Tex. 2001). Mason has not established why the order s he is challenging

are appealable at this time.
Accordingly, t he appeal is dismissed fo r want of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

March 24, 2011
Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., McCall, J., and Strange, J.
Bradley Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Subsidiaries

                      CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS


                                                  Years ended December 31,
                                                ---------------------------
                                                   2000            1999
                                                ---------   					---------

Net sales                                    $ 18,557,429     $ 18,850,294

Cost of sales                                   4,271,967        5,083,148
                                              -----------      -----------

                                               14,285,462       13,767,146
                                              -----------      -----------

Selling, general and administrative expenses   11,646,611       11,473,059
Depreciation and amortization                     954,568        1,138,052
Interest expense - net                            248,115          235,473
Loss due to impairment of asset                 3,897,000             -
                                              -----------      -----------

                                               16,746,294       12,846,584
                                              -----------      -----------

   Income (loss) before
   income tax expense (benefit)                (2,460,832)         920,562

Income tax expense (benefit)                     (398,000)         360,000
                                              -----------      -----------

   NET INCOME (LOSS)                         $ (2,062,832)    $    560,562
                                              ===========      ===========


Net income (loss) per common share
       Basic & Diluted                       $      (0.26)    $       0.07
                                              ===========      ===========


Weighted average number
    of common shares
       Basic                                    7,900,000        7,970,000
                                              ===========      ===========
       Diluted                                  7,900,000        8,020,000
                                              ===========      ===========






The accompanying notes are an integral part of these statements.


                                     F-5
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 250 (Wednesday, December 31, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 68282]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-34017]



[[Page 68282]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. ER98-64-000]


Metropolitan Edison Company, Pennsylvania Electric Company, PECO 
Energy Company, and PP&L, Inc. and UGI Utilities, Inc.; Notice of 
Filing

December 23, 1997.
    Take notice that on December 11, 1997, Metropolitan Edison Company 
and Pennsylvania Electric Company (doing business as GPU Energy), PECO 
Energy Company, and, jointly, PP&L, Inc., and UGI Utilities, Inc., 
filed a compliance filing in the above-captioned docket.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice 
and Procedures (18 CFR 385.211 and 18 CFR 385.214). All such motions or 
protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-34017 Filed 12-30-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
**EXHIBIT 15**

 

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

 

Board of Directors andShareholders

Cubic Corporation

 

We have reviewed the condensedconsolidated balance sheet of Cubic Corporation as of March 31, 2005, andthe related condensed consolidated statements of income and cash flows for thethree- and six-month periods ended March 31, 2005 and 2004.  These financial statements are theresponsibility of the Company’s management.

 

We conducted our reviews inaccordance with standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board(United States).  A review of interimfinancial information consists principally of applying analytical procedures tofinancial data, and making inquiries of persons responsible for financial andaccounting matters.  It is substantiallyless in scope than an audit conducted in accordance with the standards of thePublic Company Accounting Oversight Board, the objective of which is theexpression of an opinion regarding the financial statements taken as awhole.  Accordingly, we do not expresssuch an opinion.

 

Based on our reviews, we arenot aware of any material modifications that should be made to the condensedconsolidated financial statements referred to above for them to be inconformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.

 

We have previously audited, inaccordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board(United States), the consolidated balance sheet of Cubic Corporation as of September 30,2004 and the related consolidated statements of income, changes in shareholders’equity and cash flows for the year then ended (not presented herein) and in ourreport dated November 24, 2004, we expressed an unqualified opinion onthose consolidated financial statements. In our opinion, the information set forth in the accompanying condensedconsolidated balance sheet at September 30, 2004, is fairly stated, in allmaterial respects, in relation to the consolidated balance sheet from which ithas been derived.

 

 
|   | /s/  ERNST & YOUNG LLP |
|--------|---------------------------------|

 

 

San Diego, California

April 25, 2005

 

----
Exhibit 12





AMERICAN GENERAL FINANCE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges

(Unaudited)







|Three Months Ended March 31,                              |            |         
|--------------------------------------------------------- | ---------- | --------
|(dollars in thousands)                                    | 2007       | 2006    
|Earnings:
(Loss) income before provision for income taxes | $ (46,868) | $199,304
|Interest expense                                          | 297,666    | 254,086 
|Implicit interest in rents                                | 5,367      | 4,983   
|Total earnings                                            | $256,165   | $458,373
|Fixed charges:
Interest expense                           | $297,666   | $254,086
|Implicit interest in rents                                | 5,367      | 4,983   
|Total fixed charges                                       | $303,033   | $259,069
|Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                        | 0.85       | 1.77    







32
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 


BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 


I ",. 

U1 ~, 

-0 

-~- -"...... 

) 

In the Matter of ) PUBLIC 

) Docket No. 9327 

Polypore International, Inc. ) 

a corporation. ) 

) 

ERRATA SHEET 

This errata sheet provides the attached page 96 to be replaced in the public version of 

Complaint Counsel's Post-Trial Findings of Fact filed on July 10, 2009. Page 96 has been 

corrected by additional redactions of in camera material in'l[ 640. 

Dated: August 5, 2009 Respectfully Submitted 

By:7¥=
 I~obert Robertson 

Federal Trade Commission 

Bureau of Competition 

600 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. 

Washington, DC 20580 

Telephone: (202) 326-2008 

Fax: (202) 326-2884 

Complaint Counsel 
639. 

640. 

641. 	 Dr. Simpson also noted that } 

(Simpson, Tr. 3197, in camera). As a matter of economIC theory, nation 

clauses tend to make firms less competitive by preventing them from making selective 

price cuts. (Simpson, Tr. 3197-3198, in camera). 

642. 

(Simpson, Tr. 3198­

99, in camera). was building a new factory and had plans to 

add an additional line at its Tennessee plant. (Gaugl, Tr. 4576). The additional capacity 

at the Austria plant would have freed up capacity at its Tennessee plant which previously 

643. 

had supplied 01 at 3 Daramic 

96 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on August 5,2009, I filed via hand delivery an original and 

two hard copies of the foregoing Errata Sheet to public version of Complaint Counsel's 

Post -Trial Findings of Fact with: 

Donald S. Clark, Secretary 

Office of the Secretary 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Rm. H-135 

Washington, DC 20580 

I hereby certify that on August 5,2009, I served via electronic and interoffice 

mail delivery two copies of the foregoing Errata Sheet to public version of Complaint 

Counsel's Post-Trial Findings of Fact with: 

The Honorable D. Michael Chappell 

Administrative Law Judge 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, H-106 

Washington, DC 20580 

oalj @ftc.gov 

I hereby certify that on August 5,2009, I served via electronic and first-class mail 

delivery two copies of the foregoing Errata Sheet to public version of Complaint 

Counsel's Post-Trial Findings of Fact with: 

William L. Rikard, Jr., Esq. 

Eric D. Welsh, Esq. 

Parker, Poe, Adams & Bernstein, LLP 

401 South Tryon Street, Suite 3000 

Charlotte, North Carolina 28202 

williarnrikard@parkerpoe.com 

ericwelsh @parkerpoe.com 

Linda Cunnin 

Federal Trade 1 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20580 

Telephone: (202) 326-2638 

1cunningham@ftc.gov
#### ORLANDO SPORTS STADIUM, INC., et al., Appellants, v. SENTINEL STAR COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, et al., Appellees.

No. 72-449.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Feb. 8, 1973.

Rehearing Denied March 5, 1973.

Charles E. Davis and Stephen P. Kanar of Fishback, Davis, Dominick & Simonet, Orlando, for appellants.

William G. Mateer of Mateer & Harbert, Orlando, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Upon a careful review of the record in this case and an analysis of the applicable authorities we conclude that the application for disqualification was sufficient as a matter of law to require disqualification of the trial judge. State v. Parks, 1939, 141 Fla. 516, 194 So. 613; Mank v. Hendrickson, Fla.App.1967, 195 So.2d 574; Brewton v. Kelly, Fla.App.1964, 166 So.2d 834; State v. Cannon, Fla.App.1964, 166 So.2d 625; Dickenson v. Parks, 1932, 104 Fla. 577, 140 So. 459; Crosby v. State, Fla.1957, 97 So.2d 181; State v. Dewell, 1938, 131 Fla. 566, 179 So. 695; Vaughn v. State, Fla.App.1969, 226 So.2d 443. Cf. Hahn v. Frederick, Fla.1953, 66 So.2d 823. Having determined that an order of disqualification should have been entered it follows that the judgments and orders of the trial court entered subsequent thereto were without authority. Crosby v. State, supra; Vaughn v. State, supra.

Accordingly, the order denying suggestion for disqualification and all judgments and orders subsequent thereto including the *84final judgment are hereby vacated and set aside. The cause is remanded for the1 entry of an order of disqualification and reassignment in accordance with appropriate procedure and for such further action as is consistent herewith.

Reversed and remanded.

WALDEN, OWEN and MAGER, JJ., concur.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

In the Matter of
LIBBEY INC.. a corporation,
Docket No. 9301

and

NEWELI. RUBBERMAT, INC., a corporation

Nee ee ee

ORDER ON PREBEARING CONFERENCE

The prehearing scheduling conference in the above captioned matter was previously
scheduled for July 11, 2602. On Idy 10, 2002, Respondents and Complaint Counsel filed a joint
motion to extend the deadline for the scheduling conference.

The parties have demonstrated compelling circumstances for postponing the scheduling
conference. Accordingly, the scheduling conference previously set for July 11, 2002, is
rescheduled for July 25, 2002, at 3:00 p.m. in room 532, Federal Trade Commission Building,
600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.

D. Michael Chappell
Administrative Law Judge

Dated: July 10, 2002
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET, CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND THE NOTES TO
THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS ON PAGES 2 THROUGH 9 OF THE COMPANY'S
QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                             197
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,768
<ALLOWANCES>                                        58
<INVENTORY>                                      1,366
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 3,612
<PP&E>                                           5,401
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,836
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  12,734
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,246
<BONDS>                                          3,494
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        521
<COMMON>                                           779
<OTHER-SE>                                       2,257
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    12,734
<SALES>                                          6,565
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,565
<CGS>                                            5,166
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,581
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (32)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     9
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 282
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    384
<INCOME-TAX>                                       125
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                256
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       256
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.85
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.83
        

</TABLE>
No, 72-6153.

#### Ruderer *v.*United States Army Aviation Materiel Command et al.

Appeal from D. C. E. D. Ill. dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Mr. Justice Blackmun took no part in the consideration or decision of this appeal.
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document





































 



 
 

  Exhibit 10.12    
    


 
 

  Axcelis Technologies, Inc.
  Named Executive Officer Base Compensation at March 1, 2014    
    



        This Exhibit discloses the current understandings with respect to base compensation between Axcelis Technologies, Inc. (the
"Company") and each of:



	•
	the Company's principal executive officer (Mary G. Puma), 



	•
	the Company's principal financial officer (Kevin J. Brewer), and 



	•
	the three most highly compensated other executive officers serving as executive officers at December 31, 2013. 




        These
executive officers are referred to herein as "named executive officers" or "NEOs." 


        Other
than in the case of Mary G. Puma, the Company has not entered into any written agreements with its named executive officers addressing the amount of base salary due to the
executive. The Company's Amended and Restated Employment Agreement with Ms. Puma ("Puma Employment Agreement") is listed as an Exhibit to this Form 10-K (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.3 to the Company's Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2007 filed on November 8, 2007). The Company maintains that all executive officers, other than
Ms. Puma, are employees at will and that the Company has no obligation to continue their employment, other in cases where such obligation arises under the Change of Control Agreements described
in our Proxy Statement and filed as an Exhibit to this Form 10-K. 


 Rate of Base Pay  


        In the course of the employment relationship with each NEO, the Company communicates to the named executive officer the amount of base
salary approved by the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors, which compensation is subject to change in the discretion of the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors (provided
Ms. Puma's employment agreement sets a minimum base pay amount). The following table sets forth the annual base salary as communicated to the named executive officers of the Company as in
effect on March 1, 2014: 

 






							
	Named Executive Officer



 
	 	Title 	 	Rate of Annual

Base Pay 	 
	 Mary G. Puma
	 	President and Chief Executive Officer	 	$	550,000	 
	 Kevin J. Brewer
	 	Executive VP and Chief Financial Officer	 	$	350,000	 
	 William Bintz
	 	Executive VP, Engineering and Marketing	 	$	330,000	 
	 John E. Aldeborgh
	 	Executive VP, Global Customer Operations	 	$	330,000	 
	 Lynnette C. Fallon
	 	Executive VP HR/Legal and General Counsel	 	$	320,000	 




 

 








QuickLinks



Exhibit 10.12


Axcelis Technologies, Inc. Named Executive Officer Base Compensation at March 1, 2014