alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### John C. THOMAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. EAGLE MOTOR LINES et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 11928.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit.

Oct. 17, 1972.

J. B. Wells, Bossier City, for plaintiff-appellant.

Blanchard, Walker, O’Quin & Roberts by Wilton H. Williams, Jr., Shreveport, for defendants-appellees, Eagle Motor Lines and The Continental Ins. Co.

Lunn, Irion, Switzer, Johnson & Salley by Harry A. Johnson, Jr., Shreveport, for defendants-appellees Dorothy Worrell and Robert Worrell.

Before AYRES, BOLIN, and HEARD, JJ-

BOLIN, Judge.

This case having been called for argument in the manner and at the time prescribed in the Uniform Rules of the Courts of Appeal, Rule V, Section 4, and the appellant having neither appeared nor filed a brief prior to the time the case was called for argument, the appeal is considered abandoned and is dismissed at appellant’s cost. Uniform Rules, Courts of Appeal, Rule VII, Section 5(b), as revised June 1, 1971.
RegistrationNumber
    
    Description of Registration Statement
    
    Filing Date333-03293
    
    The B.F.Goodrich Company Stock Option Plan  Form S-8
    
    May 8, 1996333-19697
    
    The B.F.Goodrich Company Savings Benefit Restoration Plan  Form S-8
    
    January 13, 1997333-53879
    
    Directors Deferred Compensation Plan  Form S-8
    
    May 29, 1998333-53881
    
    Rohr, Inc. 1982 Stock Option Plan, Rohr, Inc. 1989 Stock Incentive Plan
and Rohr, Inc. 1995 Stock Incentive Plan  Form S-8
    
    May 29, 1998333-76297
    
    Coltec Industries Inc. 1992 Stock Option Plan and Coltec Industries
Inc. 1994 Stock Option Plan for Outside Directors  Form S-8
    
    April 14, 1999333-77023
    
    The B.F.Goodrich Company Stock Option Plan and Goodrich Corporation
2001 Equity Compensation Plan  Form S-8
    
    April 26, 1999333-60210
    
    Goodrich Corporation Stock Option Plan  Form S-8
    
    May 4, 2001333-60208
    
    Goodrich Corporation Employee Stock Purchase Plan  Form S-8
    
    May 4, 2001333-98165
    
    Shelf Registration for Debt Securities, Series Preferred Stock, Common
Stock, Stock Purchase Contracts and Stock Purchase Units  Form S-3
    
    August 15, 2002333-107866
    
    Goodrich Corporation Employees Savings Plan  Form S-8
    
    August 12, 2003333-107867
    
    Goodrich Corporation Wage Employees Savings Plan  Form S-8
    
    August 12, 2003333-107868
    
    Goodrich Corporation Savings Plan for Rohr Employees  Form S-8
    
    August 12, 2003333-109247
    
    Goodrich Corporation Directors Deferred Compensation Plan  Form S-8
    
    September 29, 2003333-123721
    
    Goodrich Corporation Outside Director Deferral Plan  Form S-8
    
    March 31, 2005333-124244
    
    Goodrich Corporation 2001 Equity Compensation Plan  Form S-8
    
    April 22, 2005333-151477
    
    Goodrich Corporation Amended and Restated 2001 Equity Compensation Plan
 Form S-8
    
    June 6, 2008333-151478
    
    Goodrich Corporation 2008 Global Employee Stock Purchase Plan  Form S-8
    
    June 6, 2008333-154778
    
    Debt Securities, Series Preferred Stock, Common Stock, Stock Purchase
Contracts, Stock Purchase Units  Form S-3
    
    October 28, 2008
 /s/ Ernst & Young LLP 
 60
#### Timothy SANDERS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. GG-59.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Oct. 25, 1977.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 14, 1977.

*1188Michael J. Minerva, Public Defender, Theodore E. Mack, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Charles W. Musgrove, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was charged by information with (1) burglary (with a dangerous weapon) in violation of F.S. 810.02 and F.S. 775.087 and (2) grand larceny in violation of F.S. 812.021. A jury found appellant guilty on both counts as charged. It is from the adjudication and sentence following the jury’s verdict that this appeal is taken. By his sole point on appeal, appellant urges that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal made at the close of all the evidence. No useful purpose will be accomplished by meticulous repetition of the evidence adduced at trial. Suffice to say that although our examination of the record reveals insufficient evidence for the jury to have determined that appellant was armed with a dangerous weapon, there is ample evidence from whence the jury could have determined (and apparently did) that appellant was guilty of burglary and grand larceny. We accordingly reverse and remand for resen-tencing, at which time it will not be necessary that appellant be present.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

McCORD, C. J., and BOYER, J., concur.

MILLS, J., dissents.

MILLS, Judge,

dissenting:

.1 dissent.

I would reverse the judgment and sentence on authority of *Jenkins v. State,*342 So.2d 1097 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977).

ON PETITIONS FOR REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

Both appellant and appellee have filed petitions for rehearing. Appellee’s petition contends as follows:

> “In concluding that the evidence does not sustain Appellant’s conviction for being armed with a dangerous weapon while committing his burglary, this Court has overlooked that the grand larceny conviction which was affirmed is for stealing a firearm. If the jury could find that Appellant stole the firearm, the only thing missing from the victim’s home, it could also find him guilty of the higher degree of burglary, since Section 810.02(2)(b), Florida Statutes, reads as follows:

> ‘(b) Is armed, *or arms himself within such structure,*with explosives or a dangerous weapon.’ (emphasis added)”

> Appellant’s petition for rehearing argues: “If there was insufficient evidence to show appellant was armed with a dangerous weapon while in the house, there could not have been sufficient evidence to show that grand larceny occurred since the only thing missing from the victim’s residence was the gun itself.”

While on their face these contentions of appellant and appellee appear to be logical, in our view the mere showing of theft of a gun after entering a structure, standing alone, is insufficient to establish burglary armed with a dangerous weapon.

Petitions for rehearing denied.

McCORD, C. J., and BOYER, J., concur.

MILLS, J., dissents.

MILLS, Judge,

dissenting:

I dissent. I would grant appellant’s petition for rehearing. I would deny appellee’s petition for rehearing.
EXHIBIT 23.1




                        CONSENT OF DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
                              INDEPENDENT AUDITORS




We  hereby  consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference  to  the  Registration
Statements on Form S-8  (Registration  Numbers  333-41228 and  333-50558) of our
report  dated  February  1,  2001 on our  audits of the  consolidated  financial
statements  of MDSI  Mobile  Data  Solutions  Inc.  and its  subsidiaries  as of
December  31, 2001 and 2000,  which  report is included in the Annual  Report on
Form 10-K of MDSI Mobile Data  Solutions  Inc.  for the year ended  December 31,
2001.



/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

Chartered Accountants
AK/pk

Vancouver, British Columbia
March 28, 2002
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDG MENT

No. 04

- 18

- 00851

- CV

Stephanie VELA , Individually and as Next Friend of Juliet Banuelos,

Appellants

v.

James KEISER

, Appellee

From the 224th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016CI17844

Honorable Cathleen M. Stryker, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION

, JUSTICE WATKINS , AND JUSTICE RODRIGUEZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the agreed motion to dismiss is

GRANTED, the trial court’s judgment is VACATED without regard to the merits, and this appeal

is REMANDED to the trial court for rendition of judgment in accordance with the parties’

settlement agreement.

We order that appellee James Keiser recover his costs of appeal, if any, from appel lant

Stephanie Vela, Individually and as Next Friend of Juliet Banuelos.

SIGNED May 29, 2019.

_________________________________ Beth Watkins

, Justice
H. Res. 187

In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

May 27, 1993.

Resolved, That the following named Members be, and

they are hereby, elected to the following standing committees

of the House of Representatives:

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE: Mr. Smith, Michigan;

and Mr. Everett, Alabama.

COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES:

Mrs. Bentley, Maryland; Mr. Taylor, North Carolina; and Mr.

Torkildsen, Massachusetts.

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS AFFAIRS: Mr. Stearns, Florida; and Mr. King, New York.

Attest:

Clerk.
#### THE STATE use of Brown and wife *vs*. WILLIAM D. GRIFFITH and sureties.

*A.*by will gave certain personal goods to his wife, and by a subsequent codicil revoking this, declared that “ his wife should have no part of his personal estate, more than the law *allowsheld*that the wife was entitled only to her third of the real estate.

Kent,

October term, 1848.

This was an action of debt on a testamentary bond of William Griffith, against William D. Griffith, his executor, to recover the one-third part of the personal estate.

The narr. set out the testamentary bond and recited the will of William Griffith, which gave the wife certain specific articles of personal property; and a codicil which revoked that part of the will and declared “ that his wife should have no part of his estate more than the law allows;” averred the receipt of assets to a large amount, a third part of which belonged to the widow; and assigned as a breach the non-payment thereof, . &c., to which the defendant demurred.

*Mr.*Fisher.

The demurrer involves a construction of the, will. What is it that the law allows, out of the estate of a man who dies leaving a will ? Nothing but dower in his land; no part of his personal estate. It is not a case of intestacy, but a case where the testator shows his purpose that his wife should have no more than her dower out of his real estate.

*Mr.*Layton.

The will must be construed by the known rules of law, which will ever control a particular intention. The fourth item *110of the codicil is to be read as if in the will, and means that the wife shall have such part of his estate as the law would allow, without a will; referring so the *intestate*law, and not to the act of 1816, concerning dower out of lands. [4 *Harr. Rep.*38.] The word “ estate” refers to the personal as well as real property; and the law referred to by the testator was the intestate law, as well as the law of dower out of real estate.

*Layton,*for plaintiff.

*Fisher*and *Smithers,*for defendant.

*Mr. Smithers*

replied, that the will devised all the estate; first specifically, a certain portion of the personal property to the wife and the residue to his children; then, by codicil, revoking these bequests, the testator declares that his widow shall have no more of his estate than the law allows her; thus bequeathing all-the personal property an,d all the real also, except what the law allows the widow, to his children. This is not *giving,*as the counsel read the will, such part.of his real estate as the law directs; but it is taking away every thing which he had bequeathed to the wife; and shows the intention to take away every thing else, so far as the law would permit him. She should not have what he had before given her; nor should she have any thing else, more than the law allows. Now, the law allows the widow nothing in case of a man who disposes of his property by will, but one-third of the *real*estate; it is only in cases of intestacy that the law gives her a portion of the personal property.

Judge Wootten delivered the judgment of the court, sustaining these general views in favor of the demurrer.

Judgment for defendant.
EX-10.43





 Exhibit 10.43 

 
 



 
 April 24, 2020 
 Ken
Reali 
 Re: Amendment to Employment Agreement 
 Dear
Ken: 
 This letter will serve to amend your employment agreement with Bioventus LLC dated as of March 14, 2020 (the “Agreement”) as follows:

  

	 	1.	 The effective date of the Agreement is hereby amended to be April 13, 2020 to coincide with the
commencement date of your employment. 


  

	 	2.	 The grant of 417,804 Phantom Profits Interest Units shall be awarded to you on or before July 1, 2020, and
will be subject to all of the terms of the plan, a copy of which will be made available for your review upon request. The vesting period for this award will commence on April 13, 2020 and the value of the Units will be determined based on the
most recent valuation completed on April 30, 2020. 


  

	 	3.	 All other terms of the Agreement remain in full force and effect and are hereby ratified and confirmed in all
respects. 


 If the foregoing is acceptable to you, please so indicate by signing and dating a copy of this letter where indicated below.

 Sincerely, 
  

	
	 /s/ Williams A. Hawkins, III

	 William A. Hawkins, III

	 Chairman, Bioventus Board of Managers


  

					
	 Understood and Agreed:
  

	 /s/ Ken Reali
	 	            	 	 5/13/2020

	Ken Reali	 		 	Date
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 441 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                 House Calendar No. 168
103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 441

                          [Report No. 103-529]

    Waiving a requirement of clause 4(b) of rule XI with respect to 
 consideration of a certain resolution reported from the Committee on 
                                 Rules.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 24, 1994

 Mr. Hall of Ohio, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following 
resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
    Waiving a requirement of clause 4(b) of rule XI with respect to 
 consideration of a certain resolution reported from the Committee on 
                                 Rules.

    Resolved, That the requirement of clause 4(b) of rule XI for a two-
thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee on Rules on the 
same day it is presented to the House is waived with respect to a 
resolution reported on the legislative day of May 25, 1994, providing 
for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4426) making appropriations for 
foreign operations, export financing, and related programs for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 1995.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

                                                 House Calendar No. 168

103d CONGRESS

  2d Session

                              H. RES. 441

                          [Report No. 103-529]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

    Waiving a requirement of clause 4(b) of rule XI with respect to 
 consideration of a certain resolution reported from the Committee on 
                                 Rules.

_______________________________________________________________________

                              May 24, 1994

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
```
# C_2020103EN.01003202.xml

| 30.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/32

---

Action brought on 27 January 2020 — Chanel v EUIPO — Huawei Technologies (Representation of a circle containing two interlaced curves)

(Case T-44/20)

(2020/C 103/46)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Chanel (Neuilly sur-Seine, France) (represented by: J. Passa, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd (Shenzhen, China)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for the EU figurative mark (Representation of a circle containing two interlaced curves) — Application for registration No 17 248 642

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 November 2019 in Case R 1041/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision in so far as it considered that the signs at issue, in the position in which they appear in the application for registration, are not similar; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision in so far as it considered that the signs at issue, in the position in which they appear in the application for registration, are not similar;

| — | annul the decision in so far as it refused as a matter of principle to compare those signs where the sign, covered by the application for registration at issue, was rotated 90 degrees compared to the direction in which it appeared in the application for registration; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision in so far as it refused as a matter of principle to compare those signs where the sign, covered by the application for registration at issue, was rotated 90 degrees compared to the direction in which it appeared in the application for registration;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and the Council.

---
## UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

Before
KERN, ALDYKIEWICZ , and MARTIN Appellate Military Judges

UNITED STATES, Appellee

v. Private First Class JOSHUA C. HUDSONCURRIER

United States Army, Appellant

ARMY 20 11 0 737

Headquarters, 82d Airborne Division Tara A. Osborn, Military Judge Colonel Lorianne M. Campanella, Staff Judge Advocate

For Appellant: Lieutenant Colonel Jonathan Potter, JA; Captain A. Jason Nef, JA; Captain James S. Trieschmann, Jr., JA (on brief).

For Appellee: Colonel John P. Carrell, JA; Lieutenant Colonel James L Varley, JA; Major Catherine L. Brantley, JA; Captain Samuel Gabremariam, JA (on brief).

27 February 201 4

- ------------------ -------------- SUMMARY DISPOSITION

--------------------------------- Per Curiam:

A military judge sitting as a general court

- martial convicted appellant

, pursuant to his pleas, of resisting apprehension and assault upon a person in the

execution of law enforcement duti es in violation of Article s 95 and 12 8

, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § § 895

, 92 8 (2006) [hereinafter UCMJ]

. The military judge convicted appellant, contrary to his pleas

, of conspiracy and aggravated assault in violation of Articles 81 and 128, UCMJ. The military judge

sent enced appellant to a bad

- conduct discharge , reduction to the grade of E

- 1, and four years confinement

. T he convening authority approved the adjudged sentence and credited appellant with 159 days of confinement credit.

Among appellant’s assignment s of error for our review under Article 66,

UCMJ

, is an allegation that the staff judge advocate failed to comply with Rule for

Courts

- Martial [hereinafter R.C.M.] 1106(d)(4) by failing to provide an opinion on

whether c orrective action should be taken on an allegation of legal error raised in appellant’s R

. C

. M

. 1105 post

- trial matters regarding dilatory post

- trial processing in

violation of United States v. Moreno , 63 M. J . 129 ( C.A.A.F. 2006) and United StatesHUDSONCURRIER

— ARMY 20110737

2

v. Colazzo , 53 M.J. 721 (A rmy C t

. C rim

. A pp . 2000). As relief, appellant requests

this court order a new review and action. Consistent with our decision in United

States v. Arias , 72 M.J. 501 ( Army Ct. Crim. App. 2013), we agree. Consequently, we need not reach appellant’s personally raised issues and other briefed allegations

of error.

The convening authority’s initial action, dated 7 July 2012 , is set aside. The

record of trial will be returned to The Judge Advocate Gene ral for a new staff judge advocate recommendation and a new action by the same or different convening authority in accordance with Article 60(c)

– (e), UCMJ.

FOR THE COURT:

MALCOLM H. SQUIRES, JR.

Clerk of Court MALCOLM H. SQUIRES, JR.

Clerk of Court FOR THE COURT:
# C_2020271EN.01005202.xml

| 17.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/52

---

Action brought on 2 July 2020 — DVB Bank v SRB

(Case T-407/20)

(2020/C 271/65)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: DVB Bank SE (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: H. Berger and K. Helle, Germany)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 15 April 2020 on the calculation of contributions to the Single Resolution Fund collected in advance for 2020 (SRB/ES/2020/24), including its annexes, in so far as the contested decision, including Annex I and Annex II, concerns the applicant’s contribution; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 15 April 2020 on the calculation of contributions to the Single Resolution Fund collected in advance for 2020 (SRB/ES/2020/24), including its annexes, in so far as the contested decision, including Annex I and Annex II, concerns the applicant’s contribution;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The action is based on ten pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to those put forward in Case T-405/20, DZ Hyp v CRU.

---
#### Roosevelt JAMES, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 44504.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Oct. 18, 1973.

Certiorari dismissed. 280 So.2d 729.
[No. 1231-1.

Division One—Panel 1.

May 30, 1972.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Michael Bonbright, *Appellant.*
EXHIBIT 99.2

Certification of Chief Executive Officer  Pursuant to  18 U.S.C. §1350,  As Adopted Pursuant To  Section 906 OF the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Endocardial Solutions, Inc. Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended
December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, James W. Bullock, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| |  | /s/ JAMES W. BULLOCKJames W. Bullock Chief Executive OfficerMarch 28, 2003
| |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

QuickLinks
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, April 09, 2015.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of

the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, April 09, 2015

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A15D0305. TANYA WHITFIELD v. MACY'S INC.

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be

hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of this

order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record

transmitted to the Court of Appeals.

LC NUMBERS:

2014CV254756
#### STATE of Florida ex rel. Rufus TOLBERT, Relator, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Corrections for the State of Florida, Respondent.

No. 71-1391.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 6, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Habeas corpus dismissed.
[No. 524-2.

Division Two.

February 15, 1972.]

#### Maxine S. Schnell, *Appellant,*v. Dale W. Becker *et al., Respondents.*