alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. I S AI H V E YT I A, D e f

e n d an t - A p p e llan t. N o. 10- 50027 D. C. No . 3 : 0 9 - c r - 0 3 1 4 5 - J LS ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e S o u th e rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia J ani s L . S a m m art i no, D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d D e c e m be r14, 2010 ** B efo re: G O O D W IN , W A L L A C E , an dC L IF T O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. I s a ih V e y tiaap p e a ls f

r o m th e 9 6 - m o n th s e n te n c e im p o s e df o llo w in g h is gui l ty - pl e ac onvi c t i on f ori m port a t i on of

c oc a i ne , i n vi ol a t i on of 21 U . S . C . §§ 952, 9 6 0 . W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U . S. C. § 1 2 9 1 , a n dw e a f f i rm. 

# FI LED

JAN 05 2 011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS10- 50027 2 V ey t i a c on t ends that , w hen i m po si ng a s ent ence bel ow the st atut ory m an d ato ry m in im u m , th e d istrict co u rt erre db y d eterm in in g th at th e g o v ern m en t’ s subst ant i alas si st ance m ot i on un der 18 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(e) perm i tt ed i tt o con si der onl ythe f

a c t or s s e tf

orth i n s e c t i on 3553( e ) a nd notthe f a c t or s s e tf

orth i n 18 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) . V e y tiac o n te n d s th a t th is d e te rm in a tio n c o n f lic ts w ith Ki m brou gh v. U

ni ted States , 55 2 U . S . 85 (200 7), and l ea ds t o a se nt ence that v io la te s th e p ar s im o n yp r in c ip le . T h e s e c o n te n tio n s a r e f o r e c lo s e d . See U

ni ted States v . J

ac k s on , 57 7 F . 3d 10 32 , 10 35 -36 (9th C i r. 20 09 ). AF F I RME D.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM DAY
INTERNATIONAL GROUP, INC'S QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED
SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM
10Q.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                             380
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   26,185
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     23,524
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                53,983
<PP&E>                                          53,873
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 263,581
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           27,380
<BONDS>                                        259,851
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           40,402
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                    (84,787)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   263,581
<SALES>                                        130,660
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               130,660
<CGS>                                           81,730
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  108,040
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   337
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              20,608
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,675
<INCOME-TAX>                                       757
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                918
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       918
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

                    LEWIS GALOOB TOYS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS



We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Prospectuses
constituting part of this Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 33-9393 and
No. 33-56004) and Form S-3 (No. 33-33640) of Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc. and its
subsidiaries of our report dated February 8, 1996, except for Note R, which is
as of February 12, 1996, appearing on page F-1 of this Form 10-K.




San Francisco, California
March 11, 1996
# C_2022432EN.01002801.xml

| 14.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/28

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 September 2022 — Balaban v EUIPO (Stahlwerk)

(Case T-705/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark STAHLWERK - Absolute grounds for refusal - No distinctive character - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2022/C 432/34)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Okan Balaban (Bornheim, Germany) (represented by: T. Schaaf, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Nicolás Gómez and M. Eberl, acting as Agents)

Re:

By his action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment in part and the variation of the examiner’s decision of 18 November 2020 and of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 2 September 2021 (Case R 77/2021-1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Okan Balaban to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Okan Balaban to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 37, 24.1.2022.

---
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7199

MICHAEL ANTHONY FEREBEE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SHERIFF MCCABE; DR. CEJAS; MS. WATSON, Head Nurse; N.C.J.’S MEDICAL STAFF, Nurses; NORFOLK CITY JAIL; NORFOLK CITY JAIL MEDICAL STAFF, Defendants - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District Judge. (CA-96-1787-AM) Submitted: December 16, 1999 Decided: December 29, 1999Before MURNAGHAN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Anthony Ferebee, Appellant Pro Se. Samuel Lawrence Dumville, Virginia Beach, Virginia; Deborah Sue Prince, HEILIG, MCKENRY, FRAIM & LOLLAR, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on July 21, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was entered on the docket sheet on July 22, 1999. Pursuant to Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date the order was entered on the docket sheet that we take as the effective date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v. Murray , 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986). 2 PER CURIAM:Michael Anthony Ferebee appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Ferebee v. McCabe , No. CA-96-1787-AM (E.D. Va. July 22, 1999). * We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1

                             WEBLINK WIRELESS, INC.
                    COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS (LOSS)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                         THREE MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 2000
                                                       -------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            NUMBER                   PERCENT                  EQUIVALENT
                                                          OF SHARES                OUTSTANDING                  SHARES
                                                       ---------------           ---------------           ---------------
COMMON STOCK
<S>                                                    <C>                       <C>                       <C>
   From Founders' Stock                                      2,300,000                    100.00%                2,300,000
   Stock Options Exercised                                   2,446,387                     99.64%                2,437,686
   Preferred Stock Converted to Common Stock                15,310,943                    100.00%               15,310,943
   1994 Common Stock Offerings                              11,242,857                    100.00%               11,242,857
   1995 Common Stock Offerings                               4,323,874                    100.00%                4,323,874
   1996 Common Stock Offering                                6,000,000                    100.00%                6,000,000
   1999 Treasury Stock Transaction                              (6,588)                   100.00%                   (6,588)
   March 2000 Debt Swap                                      3,789,715                    100.00%                3,789,715
   Canadian Transaction                                        714,286                    100.00%                  714,286
   Employee Stock Purchase Plan Shares Issued                  157,605                     92.55%                  145,867
   Warrants Exercised                                          132,539                     98.52%                  130,580
                                                       ---------------                                     ---------------
                                                            46,411,618                                          46,389,220

WEIGHTED AVERAGE SHARES OUTSTANDING                                                                             46,389,220

NET LOSS                                                                                                      (25,308,799)

NET LOSS PER SHARE                                                                                         $         (0.54)
                                                                                                           ===============
</TABLE>
BILL OF COSTS

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, SIXTH DISTRICT, AT TEXARKANA

No. 06-13-00081-CV

Chris L. Gilbert and Glenn E. Janik

v.

Kate M. Moseley

(No. CC-13-02405-D IN COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO 4 OF DALLAS COUNTY)

TYPE OF FEE CHARGES PAID BY

REPORTER'S RECORD

CLERK'S RECORD

MOTION FEE

MOTION FEE

MOTION FEE

MOTION FEE

REQUIRED TEXAS.GOV EFILING FEE

REQUIRED TEXAS.GOV EFILING FEE

FILING FEE PAID TO COURT THAT 

TRANSFERRED CASE

$1,054.75

$1,050.00

$10.00

$10.00

$10.00

$10.00

$5.00

$5.00

$175.00

PAID

UNKNOWN

E-PAID

E-PAID

PAID

E-PAID

E-PAID

TRANSFER

PAID

GLENN JANIK

CHRIS GILBERT

MARIA M RAZO

JIM E PENNINGTON

MUNCK WILSON MANDALA, LLP

CHRISTOPHER D KRATOVIL

CHRISTOPHER D KRATOVIL

REBECCA SPRANG

MUNCK WILSON

Balance of costs owing to the Sixth Court of Appeals, Texarkana, Texas: 0.00

Court costs in this cause shall be paid as per the Judgment issued by this Court.

I, DEBRA AUTREY, CLERK OF THE SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS OF THE 

STATE OF TEXAS, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true and correct 

copy of the cost bill of THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH DISTRICT OF 

TEXAS, showing the charges and payments, in the above numbered and styled cause, 

as the same appears of record in this office.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, 

witness my hand and the Seal of 

the COURT OF APPEALS for 

the Sixth District of Texas, this 

March 4, 2015.

DEBRA AUTREY, CLERK

By ___________________________

Deputy
Document

Exhibit 10.10

Second Amendment
To
Mistras Group, Inc.
2016 Long-Term Incentive Plan


Background


A.Mistras Group, Inc. (the “Company”), maintains the Mistras Group, Inc. 2016 Long-Term Incentive Plan (the “Plan”).


B.The Plan was originally effective as of October 18, 2016, the date on which it was approve by a majority of the shareholders voting at the Company’s 2016 annual shareholders meeting, and was amendment by Amendment No 1, which was approved on May 19, 2020 by a majority of  the Company’s shareholders voting at the Company’s 2020 annual shareholders meeting.


C.The Plan currently limits the number of shares of common stock of the Company (“Stock”) authorized to be issued under the Plan with a vesting period of less than one year to 5% of the shares authorized under the Plan.


D.The Board has determined that it is in the best interest of the Company to amend the Plan to allow shares of Stock to be issued with a vesting period of less than one year only to non-employee directors of the Company, and that any shares issued to non-employee directors of the Company may have a vesting period of less than one year.  


Amendment


1.Section 3.4 of the Plan is hereby amended by deleting Section 3.4 in its entirety and replacing it with the following:


d.Minimum Vesting Condition; No Acceleration. Any Award granted hereunder shall provide for a vesting period of at least one year following the date of grant.  Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, Awards may be granted hereunder without any such minimum vesting condition; provided that the foregoing exception shall apply solely to Awards granted to non-employee directors of the Company.  The Committee shall not have the authority to accelerate the vesting of an Award except (a) in connection with a Participant’s termination of employment on account of death or Disability, or (b) as specifically permitted or required under the terms hereof, including Sections 9.1 and 9.2. 
2.Except as set forth in this amendment, the Plan shall be unaffected hereby and shall remain in full force and effect.


The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing amendment to the Plan was duly approved and adopted by the Board of Directors of the Company and has executed this amendment to the Plan as of December 1, 2020.
 





Exhibit 10.10

									
			
	Mistras Group, Inc.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Michael C. Keefe
		 	Name:  Michael C. Keefe
		 	Title:  Executive Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary
# C_2023112EN.01003402.xml

| 27.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/34

---

Order of the General Court of 9 February 2023 — Folkertsma v Commission

(Case T-778/21) (1)

(Action for damages - Contract for technical assistance for support to Bangsamoro transition (Subatra) - Commission’s request to have the applicant replaced as expert - Termination of the contract between the successful tenderer and the applicant - Non-contractual liability - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals - Causal link - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

(2023/C 112/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Rommert Folkertsma (Zierikzee, Netherlands) (represented by: L. Levi and P. Baudoux, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Giolito and T. Van Noyen, acting as Agents)

Re:

By his action based on Article 268 TFEU, the applicant seeks compensation for the financial and non-material damage which he claims to have suffered following the European Commission’s request to have him replaced as an expert in the context of a European Union technical assistance project in support of the Republic of the Philippines.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Mr Rommert Folkertsma shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Rommert Folkertsma shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 84, 21.2.2022.

---
#### Lois M. Scorsone, Individually and as Executrix of John C. Scorsone, Deceased, Appellant, v Mark Lampell et al., Respondents.

(Appeal No. 1.)

[656 NYS2d 1025]

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law with costs, motion denied and complaint reinstated. Memorandum: A judgment was entered on the same date as the order from which this appeal was taken. The order is subsumed within the judgment and the appeal is properly from the judgment, not the order *(see, Hughes v Nussbaumer, Clarke & Velzy,*140 AD2d 988; *Chase Manhattan Bank v Roberts & Roberts,*63 AD2d 566, 567). Nevertheless, we exercise our discretionary power to treat the appeal as one taken from the judgment *(see,*CPLR 5520 [c]; *Hughes v Nussbaumer, Clarke & Velzy, supra).*

Supreme Court erred in granting defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to prosecute *(see,*CPLR 3216). In dismissing the complaint, the court determined that plaintiff *993showed a justifiable excuse for the delay in responding to defendants’ 90-day demand, but that she failed to show a good and meritorious cause of action *(see,*CPLR 3216 [e]). In our view, however, the affidavit of plaintiffs medical expert is sufficient to support plaintiff’s allegation that the treatment rendered to plaintiffs decedent fell below acceptable standards and caused his death *(see, Kilty v Brooks,*208 AD2d 806, 807; *Drennon v Faris Pharmacy,*197 AD2d 863). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Fisher, J.—Dismiss Complaint.) Present—Green, J. P., Pine, Callahan, Balio and Boehm, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1258 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1258

             For the relief of the estate of Irwin Rutman.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                July 20 (legislative day, June 30), 1993

  Mr. D'Amato introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
             For the relief of the estate of Irwin Rutman.

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

SECTION 1. PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICER DESIGNATION.

    For purposes of part L of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and 
Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796 et seq.), relating to benefits 
for survivors of public safety officers, Irwin Rutman of Staten Island, 
New York, shall be deemed to have been a public safety officer on 
October 29, 1990, and his family shall be entitled to death benefits 
under such part.

SEC. 2. LIMITATION OF ATTORNEYS' AND AGENTS' FEES.

    No amount exceeding 10 percent of a payment made under section 1 
may be paid to or received by any attorney or agent for services 
rendered in connection with the payment. Any person who violates the 
provisions of this section shall be guilty of an infraction and shall 
be subject to a fine in the amount provided under title 18, United 
States Code.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    The provisions of section 1 shall take effect on the date of the 
enactment of this Act.

                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23


                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation by
reference of our reports dated April 22, 1999, included in or incorporated by
reference in this Form 10-K, into the Company's previously filed Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (No. 33-00067, 33-40610, 33-41310, 33-57648, 33-81064,
333-15679, 333-15677, 333-33885 and 333-33897).


                                       /s/ ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

                                           ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP


Chicago, Illinois
May 24, 1999
# C_2022213EN.01003702.xml

| 30.5.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 213/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 213/37

---

Judgment of the General Court of 30 March 2022 — Daimler v EUIPO (Representation of three-pointed stars on a black background II)

(Case T-278/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU pattern mark - Representation of three-pointed stars on a black background II - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2022/C 213/50)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Daimler AG (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by: N. Siebertz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Schäfer and E. Markakis, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 March 2021 (Case R 1896/2020-5), concerning an application for registration of a pattern sign representing three-pointed stars on a black background II as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Daimler AG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Daimler AG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 278, 12.7.2021.

---
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Texas Southern University, Texas Southern University 

President Leisa Crumpton-Young and General Counsel 

Hao Le v. Mary Young

Appellate case number: 01-22-00913-CV

Trial court case number: 2022-77744

Trial court: 127th District Court of Harris County

On January 3, 2023, appellants filed a “Motion For Leave to Consolidate 

Jurisdictional Response and Opening Brief,” seeking to file a single brief containing 

both its jurisdictional response and its substantive appellate arguments on January 9, 

2023. We grant appellants’ motion. 

However, if appellants do not file its consolidated brief on January 9, 2023 or 

seek an extension to file its brief, appellants’ jurisdictional response to our 

December 29, 2022 order is still due in this Court no later than 5:00 p.m. 

Monday, January 9, 2023. No further extensions will be granted on the 

jurisdictional response. 

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: ____/s/ Terry Adams_______

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: __January 5, 2023___
<PAGE>



                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS




TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND STOCKHOLDERS OF
HMG WORLDWIDE CORPORATION


     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
Nos. 333-55737, 333-77679, 333-82747, 333-91919, 333-89569, 333-37100 and
333-50002 on Form S-3; and 33-59745 on Form S-8 of HMG Worldwide Corporation of
our report dated March 26, 2001, relating to the consolidated financial position
of HMG Worldwide Corporation and consolidated subsidiaries as of December 31,
2000 and 1999, and the related consolidated statements of operations, changes in
stockholders' equity and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year
period ended December 31, 2000, which report appears in the December 31, 2000
annual report on Form 10-K of HMG Worldwide Corporation.


                                            Friedman Alpren & Green LLP



New York, New York
April 16, 2001