alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Wayne D. JOINER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY and James Roland, Jr., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 87-290.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

Aug. 7, 1987.

Wayne D. Joiner, Alexandria, in pro. per., for appellant.

Gist, Methvin, Charles LaCroix, Alexandria, defendants-appellees.

*481Before LABORDE and YELVERTON, JJ., and CULPEPPER,* J. Pro Tem.

*

 Judge WILLIAM A. CULPEPPER, Retired, participated in this decision by appointment of the Louisiana Supreme Court as Judge Pro Tem-pore.

MOTION TO DISMISS

WILLIAM A. CULPEPPER, Judge Pro Tem.

The defendants-appellees, State Farm Insurance Co. and James Roland, Jr., move to dismiss the appeal of the plaintiff-appellant, Wayne D. Joiner, on the grounds the judgment appealed from is a non-appeal-able interlocutory order.

On February 12, 1987, the trial court signed a judgment denying the plaintiff a confirmation of default, granting the defendants’ motion to strike certain allegations from the plaintiff’s petition, and denying the plaintiff’s exceptions of no right or cause of action.

The trial court granted a motion to appeal this judgment and the instant motion to dismiss was filed by the appellees.

LSA-C.C.P. art. 2083 provides:

> “An appeal may be taken from a final judgment rendered in causes in which appeals are given by law whether rendered after hearing or by default, from an interlocutory judgment which may cause irreparable injury, and from a judgment reformed in accordance with a remittitur or additur under Article 1814.”

The judgment complained of is neither a final judgment nor an interlocutory judgment which may cause irreparable injury. LSA-C.C.P. art. 1841, see *Veillon v. Veillon,*497 So.2d 1087 (La.App. 3 Cir.1986).

For the foregoing reasons, the mover’s motion to dismiss is granted, and the appellant’s appeal is dismissed at his cost.

APPEAL DISMISED.
EXHIBIT 10.2


Executive Officer Compensation Arrangements (2005
Salaries)


The following summarizes the compensation arrangements
established between Harvard Bioscience, Inc. (the “Company”) and certain
executive officers through verbal agreements.


On May 25,
2005, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company
determined base salary levels for 2005 for certain executive officers of the
Company. The base salary levels established for 2005 for these executive
officers are as follows:


	
  Name

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  Title

  	
   

  	
  2005 Salary

  	
   

  
	
  Chane
  Graziano

  	
   

  	
  Chief Executive Officer

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  455,000

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  David Green

  	
   

  	
  President

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  375,000

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Bryce Chicoyne

  	
   

  	
  Chief Financial Officer

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  175,000

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Susan M. Luscinski

  	
   

  	
  Chief Operating Officer

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  235,000

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Paul Bailey

  	
   

  	
  Vice President of
  Finance and Administration

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  155,000

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  David Strack

  	
   

  	
  President, Genomic
  Solutions, Inc. and Union Biometrica, Inc.

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  206,000

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Mark A. Norige

  	
   

  	
  Chief Operating Officer, Harvard Apparatus Business
  Unit

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  170,000
#### STATE of Mississippi v. Revel HOWARD.

No. 58392.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

March 22, 1989.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Warren County; Rush M. Clements, Judge.

*1391Frank Campbell, Dist. Atty., Vicksburg, for appellant.

Travis T. Vance, Jr., Vicksburg, for ap-pellee.

Before ROY NOBLE LEE, C.J., and PRATHER and BLASS, JJ.

AFFIRMED,
**Exhibit 13.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OR EQUIVALENT**

**PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

**(SUBSECTIONS (a) AND (b) OF SECTION 1350,**

**CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18 UNITED STATES CODE)**

 

                Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of DRAXIS Health Inc., a corporation incorporated under the laws of Canada (the “Company”), hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that:

 

                The Annual Report of Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2007 (the “Report”) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
|   | Dated: March 31, 2008 |   |   |   |                                  |
|--------|----------------------------|--------|--------|--------|---------------------------------------|
|   |                       |   |   |   |                                  |
|   |                       |   |   |   | /s/ Dan Brazier                       |
|   |                       |   |   |   | Dan Brazier                           |
|   |                       |   |   |   | President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

                The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as separate disclosure document.
#### Louise B. MOSS, Appellant, v. INVERNESS HIGHLANDS SOUTH AND WEST CIVIC ASSOCIATION, INC., etc., et al., Appellees.

No. 87-1078.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

March 10, 1988.

Clark A. Stillwell of Brannen, Stillwell & Perrin, P.A., Inverness, for appellant.

Joseph E. Neduchal of Neduchal & Ma-gee, P.A., Orlando, for appellees.

DAUKSCH, Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment enjoining appellant from renting portions of her home on the grounds the rental was in violation of deed restrictions. We reverse.

Appellant owns a single-family residence in a subdivision which is burdened with a restrictive covenant saying “All lots shall be used for residential purposes only.” Appellant has opened her home to elderly people who pay for their room and board under a scheme called an adult congregate living facility.

The question on appeal is whether the restrictive covenant is being violated by appellant. It is our considered judgment that these elderly folks are using the lot, along with appellant, for purely residential purposes and that the covenant has not been breached. Just because appellant is receiving rental income, or making a profit, from her business of sharing her home with elderly people does not mean the lot is being used for nonresidential purposes. If she were using the lot for a hospital, or a treatment center with overnight “residents,” then we would agree that the restriction would be violated. But only the fact that appellant charges her residents while they reside there does not violate the literal meaning of the restrictive covenant.

Restrictive covenants are to be strictly construed in favor of the landowner and the free use of his property. *Moore v. Stevens,*90 Fla. 879, 106 So. 901 (1926); *Young v. Tortoise Island Homeowner’s Association, Inc.,*611 So.2d 381 (Fla. 6th DCA 1987). If the drafter of this restriction had intended to forbid rental or leasing, as the trial judge did in his injunction, then he should have so provided. The fact that each elderly resident pays to live in appellant’s home does not reflect a violation of the deed restriction. If paying for the right to reside is a violation of the deed restriction, then each resident in the subdivision is violating, or has violated, the restriction. It is reasonable to assume that each one has paid rent, mortgage payments or a purchase price for the place to reside, except some children and other elderly folks who have others pay for them.

*360The judgment is reversed.

REVERSED.

SHARP, C.J., concurs.

DANIEL, J., dissents without opinion.
D

- 13. 2007 Ozone Plan, San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, April 30, 200 7. (Because of the size of this document, please use the link below to view the document and related materials.) http://www.valleyair.org/Air_Quality_Plans/AQ_Final_A dopted_Ozone2007.htm
EXHIBIT 11


                          THE NATIONAL REGISTRY INC.
                         CALCULATION OF LOSS PER SHARE


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                          YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31,
                                                                ---------------------------------------------
                                                                     1997            1996            1995
                                                                -------------   -------------   -------------
                                                                   (IN THOUSANDS EXCEPT PER SHARE AMOUNTS)
<S>                                                             <C>             <C>             <C>
Weighted average shares outstanding of Common Stock .........        35,247          28,077          23,238
Net loss ....................................................     $  (7,424)      $  (7,340)      $  (5,070)
                                                                  ---------       ---------       ---------
Preferred Stock deemed dividend .............................         1,470           1,412              --
Preferred Stock dividend ....................................           350             303              --
Net loss attributable to Common Shareholders ................        (9,244)         (9,055)         (5,070)
                                                                  ---------       ---------       ---------
Net loss per share(1) .......................................     $   (0.26)      $   (0.32)      $   (0.22)
                                                                  =========       =========       =========
<FN>

----------------
(1) Net loss per common share was compiled by dividing net loss by the weighted
    average number of common shares outstanding during the period. Common
    stock equivalents, relating to convertible Series A Preferred Stock,
    convertible Series C Preferred stock, stock options and warrants are not
    included in this calculation due to their anti-dilutive effect.
</FN>
</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 54 (Tuesday, March 20, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 16224]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-6808]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RETIREMENT THRIFT INVESTMENT BOARD


Sunshine Act; Notice of Meeting

TIME AND DATE: 10 a.m. (Eastern Time), March 26, 2012.

PLACE: 10th Floor Conference Room, 77 K Street NE., Suite 1000, 
Washington, DC 20002.

STATUS:  Parts will be open to the public and parts will be closed to 
the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

Parts Open to the Public

    1. Approval of the Minutes of the February 27, 2012 Board Member 
Meeting.
    2. Thrift Savings Plan Activity Report by the Executive Director:
    a. Monthly Participant Activity Report.
    b. Investment Performance Report.
    c. Legislative Report.

Parts Closed to the Public

    3. Predecisional Matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Kimberly A. Weaver, Director, 
Office of External Affairs, (202) 942-1640.

    Dated: March 16, 2012.
Megan G. Grumbine,
Acting Secretary, Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board.
[FR Doc. 2012-6808 Filed 3-16-12; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6760-01-P
50290.

#### LEDFORD v. FARROW.

Stolz, Judge.

1. "Where it was sought to have the court of ordinary revoke and set aside the probate of a will in solemn form, on the petition of one who had been served and was a party to the proceedings to admit the will to probate, such application...” was timely "made within three years from the rendering of the judgment sought to be vacated.” *Speer v. Speer,*74 Ga. 179 (1).

2. The appeal to the superior court from the final judgment of the court of ordinary denying the caveatrix’ motion to set aside the judgment of probate, was a de novo investigation, in which both parties were entitled to be heard *on the whole merits of the case.*Code Ann. § 6-501 (Ga. L. 1972, pp. 638, 642). The superior court judge should have submitted to a jury the issues of fact raised by *592the motions for summary judgment of the propounder and the caveatrix by hearing evidence in a de novo investigation as required by Code Ann. § 6-501; therefore, he erred in remanding the case to the court of ordinary for a determination of the case on the merits. See *Touchton v. Stewart,*222 Ga. 455 (150 SE2d 643).

Submitted February 25

Decided April 22, 1975.

*Bavis & Gregory, Hardy Gregory, Jr.,*for appellant.

*James W. Hurt,*for appellee.

The judgment remanding the case to the court of ordinary, is reversed with direction that the parties be given a de novo hearing and ruling by the superior court on the whole merits of the case.

*Judgment reversed with direction.*

*Been, P. J., concurs. Evans, J., concurs in the judgment only.*
Exhibit 10.19


 


SPHERION CORPORATION


OUTSIDE
DIRECTORS’ COMPENSATION PLAN


(Effective July 1, 2005)


 


Outside directors of the Company shall receive an
annual retainer.  The annual retainer
shall be determined by the Board of Directors at the regularly scheduled
meeting of the directors coinciding with the annual meeting of the stockholders
of the Company, and such annual retainer shall be effective for the twelve
month period commencing on the next July 1st. 
The Board of Directors may designate the manner in which the annual
retainer shall be payable including, but not limited to, in cash, in shares of
the Company’s common stock or in any combination thereof.  Further, the Board of Directors may permit up
to one hundred percent (100%) of the annual retainer to be deferred and paid to
the directors in the form of deferred stock units. The annual retainer payable
to each outside director shall be $35,000. 
In addition, the Company’s non-executive Chairman shall receive
additional annual compensation in the amount of $100,000, payable in quarterly
installments, payable in either cash, deferred stock
units or stock options, as determined by the Board.


 


Compensation for directors’ attendance at meetings of the
directors and/or board committee meetings shall be determined by the Board of
Directors at the regularly scheduled meeting of the directors coinciding with
the annual meeting of the stockholders of the Company, and such compensation
shall be effective for the twelve month period commencing on the next July 1st.  Attendance at meetings of the directors shall
be compensated at the rate of $2,000 per meeting, payable in cash.  Attendance at board committee meetings shall
be compensated at the rate of $1,500 per meeting, payable in cash.  In addition, the chairperson of the
Compensation Committee, the chairperson of the Nominating Committee and the
chairperson of the Executive Committee shall each receive additional annual
compensation in the amount of $10,000, payable in cash.  The chairperson of the Audit Committee shall
receive additional annual compensation in the amount of $20,000, payable in
cash.


 


Pursuant to the Company’s Deferred Stock Plan, each
outside director shall receive an annual grant of deferred stock units valued
at $50,000, vesting on the first anniversary of the grant.


 


Outside directors shall be reimbursed for expenses
incurred by them in connection with their service as directors of the Company.


 


This Plan shall remain in effect
until amended or terminated by the Board of Directors.
#### Jo Ann STEADHAM, et al. v. BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT OF the CITY OF MOBILE, et al.

2910175.

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

Oct. 15, 1993.

Norman J. Gale, Jr. of Clay, Massey & Gale, P.C., Mobile, for appellants.

John L. Lawler of Finkbohner, Lawler & Olen, Mobile, for Board of Adjustment of City of Mobile.

Jim H. Fernandez of Fernandez, Ollinger & Combs, Mobile, for Boys’ and Girls’ Clubs of Greater Mobile, Inc. and Steadham Joint Venture.

AFTER REMAND FROM SUPREME COURT

THIGPEN, Judge.

The prior judgment of this court has been reversed, and the cause remanded by the Supreme Court of Aabama. On remand to this court, and in compliance with the Supreme Court’s opinion of August 27, 1993, 629 So.2d 647 (Aa.1993), the judgment of the trial court is hereby reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s opinion.

REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

ROBERTSON, P.J., concurs.

YATES, J., not sitting.
#### The STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Carl JOHNSON, Appellee.

No. 88-1500.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Nov. 22, 1988.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Joni Braunstein, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Friend & Fleck and Geoffrey C. Fleck, Sp. Asst. Public Defender, for appellee.

Before NESBITT, BASKIN and DANIEL S. PEARSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Because the trial court erred in departing downward from sentencing guidelines without providing written reasons, we vacate the sentence and remand with instructions to the trial court to provide written reasons. *State v. McDavid,*532 So.2d 1125 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); *State v. Adams,*528 So.2d 548 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); *State v. Frederick,*525 So.2d 491 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988).

VACATED AND REMANDED.
**Exhibit 32.1**

**Certification Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18**

**of the United States Code**

I, Thomas M. O’Flynn, Chief Executive Officer of PSE&G Transition Funding II LLC, to the best of my knowledge, certify that (i) the Quarterly Report of PSE&G Transition Funding II LLC on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2008 (the “Periodic Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of PSE&G Transition Funding II LLC.

|   |   |   |                                                                   |
|--------|--------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|        |   |   | /s/ Thomas M. O’Flynn                                             |
|   |   |   |                                                                        |
|   |   |   | **Thomas M. O’Flynn**Chief Executive OfficerDate: August 13, 2008 |

 

----
#### Robert J. PRESTON v. Kenneth GRANGER and State Farm Insurance Company. Arne V. OLSEN, Jr. v. Kenneth GRANGER and State Farm Insurance Company.

No. 88-C-0031.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 12, 1988.

In re Olsen, Arne V. Jr.; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, Nos. 87-CA-0454, 87-CA-0455; Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court, Div. “M”, Nos. 282-013, 287-622.

Prior report: La.App., 517 So.2d 1125.

Denied.

DIXON, C.J., and CALOGERO, J., would grant the writ.
A00A1294.

#### JOHNS et al. v. RIDLEY et al.

(556 SE2d 165)

Decided October 29, 2001.

*Mills & Moss, David C. Moss,*for appellants.

*Thurbert E. Baker, Attorney General, Kathleen M. Pacious, Deputy Attorney General, Loretta L. Pinkston, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Kimberly L. Schwartz, Assistant Attorney General,*for appellees.

Johnson, Presiding Judge.

The decision of the Court of Appeals in Case No. A00A1294 having been reversed by the Supreme Court, *Ridley v. Johns,*274 Ga. 241 (552 SE2d 853) (2001), our decision in *Johns v. Ridley,*245 Ga. App. 710 (537 SE2d 746) (2000), is hereby vacated, and the judgment of the Supreme Court is made the judgment of this court.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Smith, P. J., and Phipps, J., concur.*
Exhibit 32.2


Certification of the Chief Financial Officer


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 Quarterly Report of American Apparel, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Adrian Kowalewski, 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 Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.


(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for the period covered by the Report.





Date:October 29, 2010By:/s/ ADRIANKOWALEWSKIAdrian KowalewskiChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)
**Exhibit
      23.2**




**CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**




We
      consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
      S-8 No. 333-137735 dated October 2, 2006) pertaining to the Incentive Plan
      of
      Fuel Tech, Inc. (formerly Fuel-Tech N.V.) of our report dated March, 8, 2006,
      with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Fuel
      Tech,
      Inc., included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December
      31,
      2006.





/s/
      Ernst
& Young LLP




Chicago,
      Illinois


March
      5,
      2007
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 22, 2018

No. 04-18-00409-CR

Christopher CASTORENO,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 379th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016CR2508

Honorable Ron Rangel, Judge Presiding

ORDER

The Appellant’s Fist Motion for Extension of Time to Fie Brief is GRANTED. The

appellant’s brief is due on October 15, 2018. No Further Extensions, absent extraordinary 

circumstances.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 22nd day of August, 2018.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
<PAGE>

                                   EXHIBIT 21

                                 TO FORM 10-K OF
                           SEA PINES ASSOCIATES, INC.

                   SUBSIDIARIES OF SEA PINES ASSOCIATES, INC.

      Sea Pines Company, Inc., a South Carolina corporation, is a consolidated,
wholly owned direct subsidiary of Sea Pines Associates, Inc. Sea Pines Company,
Inc. has one significant subsidiary, Sea Pines Real Estate Company, Inc., a
South Carolina corporation doing business as Sea Pines Real Estate Company.

      Sea Pines Associates, Inc. also owns all the common securities of Sea
Pines Associates Trust I, a Delaware business trust, which holds a debenture
issued by the Company.