alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Marjorie McCormack, Respondent, v Donald McCormack, as Executor of the Estate of John McCormack, Deceased, Appellant.

—In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant executor of the estate of the husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Leviss, J.), dated September 18, 1990, as granted those branches of the plaintiffs motion which were to vacate a judgment of divorce of the *613same court (LaFauci, J.H.O.), dated July 20, 1989, as well as a stipulation of settlement.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiff wife commenced this action to secure a judgment of divorce and other ancillary relief, alleging that she was constructively abandoned by her husband. The parties and their counsel appeared before a Judicial Hearing Officer, at which time a stipulation of settlement was dictated into the record. Upon finding that the stipulation was voluntarily entered into, the court conducted an inquest. At the conclusion thereof, the court granted a divorce to the plaintiff.

Prior to the entry of the judgment of divorce, the husband died. By order to show cause, the plaintiff sought, *inter alia,*to vacate the judgment of divorce and set aside the stipulation of settlement. The court granted the plaintiff’s motion and the executor of the husband’s estate now argues that the plaintiff expressly or impliedly consented that the matter be referred to a Judicial Hearing Officer, and in any event, by her conduct and participation before the Judicial Hearing Officer, waived her right to technical compliance with CPLR 4317 (a). The executor further argues that even if the judgment of divorce was defective, there was no independent basis for setting aside the stipulation of settlement which was incorporated but not merged into the judgment of divorce.

It is well settled that an order of reference to a Referee or Judicial Hearing Officer to hear and determine is permissible only upon consent of the parties *(see,*CPLR 4317 [a]; *Haibi v Haiti,*171 AD2d 842; *Schanback v Schanback,*130 AJD2d 322; *Sternberg v Sternberg,*88 AD2d 950). Moreover, a Referee’s authority is derived from the order of reference and a Judicial Hearing Officer who attempts to determine matters not referred to him by the order of reference acts beyond and in excess of his jurisdiction *(see,*CPLR 4311; *Marshall v Pappas,*143 AD2d 979, 980; *Lipton v Lipton,*128 Misc 2d 528, 531, *affd*119 AD2d 809). Upon review of the record, we find that the parties did not stipulate to a reference in the manner prer scribed by CPLR 2104 nor is there any indication that there was an order of reference designating the Judicial Hearing Officer. Under these circumstances the court properly determined that the Judicial Hearing Officer was without authority to rule that the stipulation was voluntary or to enter the judgment of divorce.

We find no merit to the executor’s remaining contention. Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, O’Brien and Ritter, JJ., concur.
toa-/r

ELECTRONIC RECORD

COA # 14-14-00867-CR

STYLE: Edward Rov Newsome v The State of Texas

COA DISPOSITION: Dismissed

DATE: December 09, 2014 Publish: No

OFFENSE: Unauthorized Use of a Vehicle

COUNTY: Harris

,th r>:. TRIAL COURT: 179TM District Court

TC CASE #:441673

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

STYLE: Edward Rov Newsome v The State of Texas

CCA#

DATE:

JUDGE:

PRO S£ Petition CCA Disposition:

FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS: DATE:

R£Fu$in>

03 li$l&>*

fM. UfAAM^—

JUDGE: _

SIGNED:.

PUBLISH:

WZ^lf

PC:

DNP:

MOTION FOR

FOR REHEARING IN CCA IS:

JUDGE:

ELECTRONIC RECORD
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Juan Jose Acuna, Jr., * From the 238th District

Court of Midland County,

Trial Court No. CR36960.

Vs. No. 11-13-00245-CR * April 16, 2015

The State of Texas, * Memorandum Opinion by Willson, J.

(Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., 

Willson, J., and Bailey, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there 

is no error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s 

opinion, the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
# C_2012326EN.01039301.xml

| 26.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/391 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/391

---

CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

TITLE III

EQUALITY

EQUALITY

Article 26

Integration of persons with disabilities

The Union recognises and respects the right of persons with disabilities to benefit from measures designed to ensure their independence, social and occupational integration and participation in the life of the community.

---
Exhibit 21

# Subsidiaries of
Cal-Maine Foods, Inc

|Name of Subsidiary                    | Place of Incorporation
or Organization | Percentage of Outstanding
Stock or Ownership Interest
Held by Registrant
|------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Cal-Maine Farms, Inc.                 | Delaware                               | 100%                                                                    
|Southern Equipment Distributors, Inc. | Mississippi                            | 100%                                                                    
|South Texas Applicators, Inc.         | Delaware                               | 100%                                                                    
|Cal-Maine Partnership, Ltd.           | Texas                                  | (1)                                                                     
|CMF of Kansas, LLC                    | Delaware                               | (2)                                                                     

---

|(1) | Limited
partnership in which Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. has a 1% General Partner           interest
and Cal-Maine Farms, Inc. has a 99% Limited Partner interest.
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|(2) | Limited
liability company of which Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. and Cal-Maine Farms,           Inc. are
members and have 99% and 1% interests, respectively.
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OMB No. 0581-0178

(Rev. 5/2017) Destroy previous editions.

The Secretary

United States Department of Agriculture

Washington, D.C. 20250

Dear Sir:

I hereby accept the appointment to the position set forth in the “Selection Order” attached to my letter of 

notification. I agree to serve during the period for which I am appointed and until my successor has been 

selected and has qualified.

In accepting this appointment, I also agree to serve to the best of my ability in administering the terms and 

provisions of Marketing Order No. 987 and the regulations issued thereunder.

When acting in my official capacity as a California Date Administrative Committee representative, I shall 

engage in only those activities that are authorized under the Marketing Order. I also understand that the 

Committee cannot become involved in lobbying and political activities.

Sincerely,

_______________________________________

Signature

_______________________________________

Name

_______________________________________

Address

_______________________________________

City, State and Zip Code

_______________________________________

Date
State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: April 16, 2015 519622 

________________________________

WHITNEY LANE HOLDINGS, LLC,

Appellant,

v

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DON REALTY, LLC, et al.,

Respondents.

________________________________

Calendar Date: February 20, 2015

Before: Lahtinen, J.P., Garry, Rose and Devine, JJ.

__________

McHale Law Firm, New York City (Paul Burg of counsel), for

appellant.

E. Stewart Jones Hacker Murphy, Latham (Ryan M. Finn of

counsel), for respondents.

__________

Lahtinen, J.P.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Ferradino, J.),

entered May 16, 2014 in Saratoga County, which granted

defendants' motion to vacate a prior order of the court.

This action involves a dispute about a commercial real

estate transaction. Alleging noncompliance with some of its

discovery demands, plaintiff moved for a preclusion order and to

strike defendants' answer. Defendants did not submit any papers

in opposition and, accordingly, Supreme Court granted the motion. 

Defendants promptly moved to vacate the order asserting, among

other things, that they had not been served with plaintiff's

motion papers and that they had already substantially complied

with the disputed discovery demands. Supreme Court granted

defendants' motion and plaintiff now appeals.
-2- 519622 

We affirm. To vacate their default in failing to oppose

the motion, defendants were "required to demonstrate a reasonable

excuse for the default and a potentially meritorious opposition

to the motion" (Remote Meter Tech. of NY, Inc., v Aris Realty

Corp., 83 AD3d 1030, 1032 [2011]; see Wood v Tuttle, 106 AD3d

1393, 1394 [2013]). "Supreme Court's decision on a motion to

vacate a default will only be disturbed in the event of an abuse

of discretion" (Aaron v Carter, Conboy, Case, Blackmore,

Napierski & Maloney, P.C., 12 AD3d 753, 754-755 [2004] [citation

omitted]). Here, Supreme Court credited defendants' explanation

for their failure to respond to plaintiff's preclusion motion,

which included a lack of service upon them of the motion and a

miscommunication regarding discovery that had already been

provided. The court further found potential merit in defendants'

opposition to the motion since defendants had apparently provided

plaintiff's former counsel with 10 boxes of records, which

defendants asserted encompassed the current demands by plaintiff. 

Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in vacating the order,

and its decision is also consistent with the preference for

resolving cases on the merits (see Gurin v Pogge, 112 AD3d 1028,

1030 [2013]).

Garry, Rose and Devine, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-50571

Conference Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Sonny Allen Thomas, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 1:19-CR-96-1

Before Graves, Willett, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

The attorney appointed to represent Sonny Allen Thomas has moved 

for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders 

v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 

(5th Cir. 2011). Thomas has filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this 

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 

circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 29, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-50571 Document: 00515919636 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/29/2021
No. 20-50571

2

brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as 

Thomas’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal 

presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s 

motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from 

further responsibilities herein, and the appeal is DISMISSED. See 5th 

Cir. R. 42.2. Thomas’s pro se motion to postpone disposition of his appeal 

is DENIED.

Case: 20-50571 Document: 00515919636 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/29/2021
U.S. Department of Transportation Research and Innovative Technology Administration
Michael Lotz President Mesa Airlines 410 North 44th Street Suite 100 Phoeniz, Arizona 85008

Dear Ms. Nelson: ". - -",'""':-. -''"\' l

1200 NewJerseyAvenue, S.E. Washington, D.C. 20590

July 1, 2010

The Bureau ofTransportation Statistics (BTS) has decided to release MesaAirlines 1st quarter 2010 Form41 financial reports. Mesahad requested that these reports be withheld from public disclosure because Mesa had submitted its Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) reports. In faimess to investors, companies are not allowed to release to the public their sensitive business data until the data has been filed with the SEC. Bureau ofTransportation Statistics had requested that Mesa verify its SEC due date Of extension. To date, BTS has notreceived therequested verification. Therefore, Mesa Airlines' Form 41 1st quarterreport will be released 10 days after the date ofthis letter unless a timely filed petition of reconsideration is received. This action is taken under authority delegated by 14 CFR 385.19(i). Ifyou have any question, please contact Bernie Stankus at bernard.stankus@dot.gov. Sincerely, 

# ().

# ~~ Anne Suissa Director Office ofAirline Information 

## cc: Alme.Nelson@mesa-air.com
Exhibit 10.14


 


MICT, Inc.


 


Amendment to 2020 Equity Incentive Plan


 


WHEREAS, MICT, Inc.
(the “Company”) maintains the 2020 Equity Incentive Plan (the “Incentive Plan”);


 


WHEREAS, the Board
of Directors (the “Board”) and the Compensation Committee of the Board has determined that it is in the best interests of
the Company to amend the Incentive Plan to increase the maximum number of shares of the Company’s common stock authorized to be
issued under the Incentive Plan by 4,000,000, from 16,000,000 to 20,000,000; and


 


WHEREAS, pursuant
to Section 31 of the Incentive Plan, an amendment that materially increases the aggregate number of shares that may be issued under the
Incentive Plan generally must be approved by a majority of votes cast by the stockholders of the Company in accordance with applicable
stock exchange rules.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, effective
as of the date of approval by a majority of votes cast by the stockholders of the Company in accordance with applicable stock exchange
rules, the Incentive Plan is hereby amended in the following particulars:


 


		1.	Section
3(a) of the Incentive Plan is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:


 


(a) The number of Shares which may be
issued from time to time pursuant to this Plan shall be 20,000,000, or the equivalent of such number of Shares after the Administrator,
in its sole discretion, has interpreted the effect of any stock split, stock dividend, combination, recapitalization or similar transaction
in accordance with Paragraph 25 of the Plan, all of which Shares are eligible to be issued as ISOs.


 


		2.	In
all other respects the Incentive Plan shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect.
Exhibit 32.1

| (1) | The      report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)      of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and |
|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (2) | The      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the      Company. |
|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                   |   |   |   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                |
|------------------------|--------|--------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| May 14,      2009 |   | By:    |   | /s/ Craig A.      Waltzer                                                |
|                   |   |   |   | Craig      A. Waltzer                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               |
|                   |   |   |   | Chief      Executive Officer, President andDirector                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 |

----
**Exhibit (10)(v)**

 

**Description of the Company’s 2005 Management Incentive Plan (the “2005 Plan”).**

 

The 2005 Plan is substantially similar to the Company’s 2004 Management Incentive Plan.Under the 2005 Plan, participants earn cash bonus compensation based upon the achievement of certain individual performance goals and the Company’s achievement of financial measures. Each participant’s target award is based on a percentageof base salary. The financial measures for the 2005 Plan for executive officers are target EBITDA of $182.9 million and target ROGI of 17.8%. These financial measures represent a 10% business growth over 2004. The target award is weighted 70% on theCompany’s achievement of financial measures and 30% on individual performance goals. Under the Plan, a minimum of 50% of the target award is paid if 90% of the financial goal is achieved and a maximum of 200% of the target award is paid if 115%of the financial goal is achieved. The financial measure and target awards described in this paragraph are applicable to our executive officers. Other participants are subject to different financial measures and target awards.
Statement Regarding Computation of Earnings Per Share
                   (in thousands, except per share amounts)

                                                                             
<TABLE>
<S>                                  <C>            <C>            <C>
                                                   Year Ended
                                     May 31, 1997   June 1, 1996   June 3, 1995


Net income (loss)                      $  14,845      $  10,925      $  (8,685)
                                     ==========================================
Weighted average common shares
outstanding*                              12,285         11,584         11,700

Options vested**                               -              -              -
                                     ------------------------------------------
                                          12,285         11,584         11,700
                                     ==========================================
Net income (loss) per common stock        $ 1.21        $   .94        $  (.74)
                                     ==========================================

   *       Reflects 1,200 for one stock split.
   **      Effects of vested options outstanding are less than 3% of earnings
           per share.

















</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 8 (Friday, January 11, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 2427]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-00317]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[WY-923-1310-FI; WYW174767]


Notice of Proposed Reinstatement of Terminated Oil and Gas Lease 
WYW174767, Wyoming

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as 
amended, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) received a petition for 
reinstatement from Empire Petroleum Corporation for competitive oil and 
gas lease WYW174767 for land in Natrona County, Wyoming. The petition 
was filed on time and was accompanied by all the rentals due since the 
date the lease terminated under the law.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bureau of Land Management, Julie L. 
Weaver, Chief, Fluid Minerals Adjudication, at 307-775-6176. Persons 
who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the 
Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to contact 
the above individual during normal business hours. The FIRS is 
available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question 
with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal 
business hours.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The lessee has agreed to the amended lease 
terms for rentals and royalties at rates of $10 per acre or fraction 
thereof, per year and 16\2/3\ percent, respectively. The lessee has 
paid the required $500 administrative fee and $159 to reimburse the 
Department for the cost of this Federal Register notice. The lessee has 
met all the requirements for reinstatement of the lease as set out in 
Sections 31(d) and (e) of the Mineral Lands Leasing Act of 1920 (30 
U.S.C. 188), and the BLM is proposing to reinstate lease WYW174767 
effective October 1, 2012, under the original terms and conditions of 
the lease and the increased rental and royalty rates cited above. The 
BLM has not issued a valid lease to any other interest affecting the 
lands.

Debra A. Olsen,
Land Law Examiner.
[FR Doc. 2013-00317 Filed 1-10-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-22-P
**Exhibit
      No. 32(b)**




**CERTIFICATION
        FURNISHED PURSUANT TO**
 **18
        U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**
 **AS
        ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**
 **SECTION
        906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**




In
      connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Progress Energy, Inc. (the
      “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Peter M. Scott III,
      Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




(1)  the
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
      applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and




(2)  the
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.














/s/
                Peter M. Scott IIIPeter
                M. Scott IIIExecutive
                Vice President andChief
                Financial OfficerMarch
                10, 2006








This
      certification is being furnished and shall not be deemed filed by the Company
      for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
      or incorporated by reference in any filing under the Securities Exchange Act
      of
      1934, as amended, or the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.