alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Estill ALLEN, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Feb. 18, 1955.

Motion to Withdraw Opinion Denied March 16, 1955.

Scott E. Duff, Hazard, for appellant.

J. D. Buckman, Jr., Atty. Gen., for ap-pellee.

STEWART, Chief Justice.

Estill Allen was convicted in the Perry Circuit Court of carrying concealed a' deadly weapon in violation of KRS 435.230 (1) and received a 'sentence of two years in the State Reformatory at LaGrange. He appeals.

His.motion-'and grounds for a new :trial having been overruled at the regular May tertnj 1954, at which, term' he had been tried,. Allen was “given until the last day. of the September term of the Perry Circuit Court to file his bill of exceptions in this case.” On September 22, 1954, Allen tendered his bill of exceptions with a transcript in duplicate of the official stenographer’s bill of the evidence and the court on that day examined and approved both of them and ordered them filed and made a part of the record without being spread on the order book. The record was filed in" this Court December 3, 1954, or 73 days after the date the bill of exceptions was made a part of the record in the trial court.

The Commonwealth maintains this Court is without jurisdiction to review the judgment appealed from, because Allen failed to comply with the provisions of Section 336(4) of the Criminal Code of Practice, which reads: “If time be given beyond the term at which the judgment is rendered; to present a bill of exceptions, the the transcript of the record may be filed in the-'clerk’s office of the Court of Appeals, within sixty days after the bill of exceptions-is made a part of the record.”

*27We agree with the contention of the Commonwealth. To give this Court jurisdiction of this appeal, it -was mandatory that Allen file his record with the clerk of this Court “within sixty days after the bill of exceptions is made a part of the record.” He did not file his record in this Court until seventy-three days had elapsed, which made the filing thirteen days late under the requirements of Section 336(4), supra. This failure to comply with the Code provision bars Allen’s appeal. See Freeman v. Commonwealth, 272 Ky. 210, 113 S.W.2d 1149, and the cases cited therein.

Wherefore, on the authority of the foregoing case this appeal must be, and it is, dismissed.

HOGG, J., not sitting.
Exhibit 21.1 List of Subsidiaries of AdvancePCS



|Name                                         |  | State of Formation    
|-------------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------
|AdvancePCS Holding Corporation               |  | Delaware              
|Consumer Health Interactive, Inc.            |  | Delaware              
|Baumel Eisner Neuromedical Institute, Inc.   |  | Florida               
|AdvancePCS Mail Services of Birmingham, Inc. |  | Alabama               
|AdvancePCS Reasearch, LLC (dba  IMR)        |  | Delaware              
|AdvancePCS SpecialtyRx, L.L.C.               |  | Delaware              
|AdvancePriority SpecialtyRx, L.L.C.          |  | Delaware              
|Dresing-Lierman, Inc.                        |  | Ohio                  
|TheraCom, Inc.                               |  | Ohio                  
|Accordant Health Services, Inc.              |  | Delaware              
|Accordant Integrated Services, Inc.          |  | North Carolina        
|AdvancePCS Health Systems, L.L.C.            |  | Delaware              
|ADVP Consolidation, L.L.C.                   |  | Delaware              
|ADVP Management, L.P.                        |  | Delaware              
|AdvanceRx.com, L.P.                          |  | Delaware              
|AdvancePCS Health, L.P.                      |  | Delaware              
|AdvancePCS Puerto Rico, Inc.                 |  | British Virgin Islands
|AFC Receivables Holding Corporation          |  | Delaware              
|Advance Funding Corporation                  |  | Delaware
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 April 28, 2014

t0421

Order 

Clerk

April 28, 2014

148604

SARAH DEMING,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 148604

COA: 309989

Oakland CC: 2011-122030-CZ

CH NOVI, L.L.C. d/b/a EMAGINE NOVI and

FILMDISTRICT DISTRIBUTION, L.L.C.,

Defendants-Appellees. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 15, 2013 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SHARQAWI ABDU ALI AL-HAJJ, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) Civil Action No. 09 -745 (RCL) v. ) ) BARACK OBAMA, et al. , ) ) Respondents. ) __________________________________________) O RDER Upon consideration of Respondents’ Consent Motion for Enlargement of Time to Respond to the Discovery Order entered September 4, 2009, it is hereby ORDERED that the Respondents are allowed until November 4, 2009, to complete the ordered discovery. SO ORDERED.

Date: 10/5/2009

____ /s/

_______________ ROYCE C. LAMBERTH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
<PAGE>   1
EXHIBIT 11.


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                  YEAR ENDED MARCH 31,
                                        -----------------------------------------
                                           1996           1997           1998
                                        ----------     ----------     -----------
<S>                                     <C>            <C>             <C>
BASIC
Numerator:

Net income                              $1,013,000     $3,226,000     $ 7,931,000
Preferred stock dividends                  800,000        553,000         200,000
                                        ----------     ----------     -----------
                                        $  213,000     $2,673,000     $ 7,731,000
                                        ==========     ==========     ===========
Denominator:

Weighted average common
   stock outstanding                     4,006,578      6,264,521       8,755,754
                                        ==========     ==========     ===========
Net income per share                    $     0.05     $     0.43     $      0.88
                                        ==========     ==========     ===========


DILUTED
Numerator:

Net income                              $1,013,000     $3,226,000     $ 7,931,000
Preferred stock dividends                  800,000           --              --
                                        ----------     ----------     -----------
                                        $  213,000     $3,226,000     $ 7,931,000
                                        ==========     ==========     ===========
Denominator:

Weighted average common                  4,006,578      6,264,521       8,755,754
   stock outstanding

Other Dilutive Securities:
Series A preferred stock                      --        1,250,000            --
Series B preferred stock                      --          833,333       1,111,111
Options and warrants using the
  treasury stock method                    569,687        828,273       1,484,054
                                        ----------     ----------     -----------
Weighted average shares outstanding      4,576,265      9,176,127      11,350,919
                                        ==========     ==========     ===========

Net income per share                    $     0.05     $     0.35     $      0.70
                                        ==========     ==========     ===========
</TABLE>


The conversion of the Series A preferred stock was anti-dilutive in 1996 and,
therefore, was not an other dilutive security.
<PAGE>

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


I,  LOCKE  GOLDSMITH,  certify,  pursuant  to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant  to  Section  906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly
Report on Form 10-QSB of Princeton Ventures, Inc. for the quarterly period ended
September  30,  2002  fully  complies  with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d)  of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained
in  the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB fairly presents in all material respects
the  financial  condition  and results of operations of Princeton Ventures, Inc.

                                          By: /s/ LOCKE  GOLDSMITH
                                              ------------------------
                                          Name:   LOCKE  GOLDSMITH
                                          Title:  Chief  Executive  Officer
                                          Date:   November 19, 2002
##### 



Exhibit 99

EVERGREENBANCORP, INC.

CERTIFICATION 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 EvergreenBancorp, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), we,
Gerald O. Hatler, Chief Executive Officer, and William G. Filer II, Chief
Financial Officer, 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; and                               
| | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| | (2) |  | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company.

|                                                       |  |                                                          
|------------------------------------------------------ |  | ---------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Gerald O. Hatler                                   |  | /s/ William G. Filer II                                  
|Gerald O. HatlerChief Executive OfficerAugust 12, 2002 |  | William G. Filer IIChief Financial OfficerAugust 12, 2002
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

*CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERCERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350*

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of MedicalCV, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSBfor the quarter ended January 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael A. Brodeur,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.             The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.             The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Companyand will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 
| Dated:   March 14, 2008 | By:    | /s/ Michael A. Brodeur                                 |
|-----------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------|
|                              |   | Michael A. Brodeur                                     |
|                              |   | Vice President, Finance  and   Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
#### Norman L. FREEMAN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 34095.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 10, 1962.

Woodrow F. Eason, Waco, for appellant.

Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

DICE, Commissioner.

The conviction is for aggravated assault upon a police officer; the punishment, confinement in jail for one year.

The record contains no statement of facts of the evidence adduced upon the trial and there are no formal bills of exception.

The claims of error in the refusal of requested charges and the overruling of objections to the charge as given cannot be appraised in the absence of a statement of facts. Hankins v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 294 S.W.2d 840; Lackey v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 318 S.W.2d 646 and Fountain v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 342 S.W.2d 587.

All proceedings appear to be regular and nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6502

STEVEN CUPP,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

WILLIAM HUTCHINGS; ANTHONY HUSSION; K. M. WHITE; HARRELL WATTS;

JOHN DOE, from the F.O.I.A. Administrative Office in Washington

D.C.,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern

District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley,

District Judge. (1:07-cv-00161-IMK-JES)

Submitted: May 22, 2008 Decided: June 2, 2008

Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Steven Cupp, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Steven Cupp appeals the district court’s order accepting

the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his civil

action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. Cupp v. Hutchings, No. 1:07-cv-00161-IMK-JES (N.D.W. Va.

Mar. 5, 2008). We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 349 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 349

 To reauthorize appropriations for the Navajo-Hopi Relocation Housing 
                                Program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

             February 2 (legislative day, January 30), 1995

  Mr. McCain (for himself and Mr. Kyl) introduced the following bill; 
  which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To reauthorize appropriations for the Navajo-Hopi Relocation Housing 
                                Program.

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

SECTION 1. REAUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE NAVAJO-HOPI 
              RELOCATION HOUSING PROGRAM.

    Section 25(a)(8) of Public Law 93-531 (25 U.S.C. 640d-24(a)(8)) is 
amended by striking ``1989,'' and all that follows through ``and 
1995.'' and inserting ``1995, 1996, and 1997.''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 99.01

CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT I, Gary L. Westerholm, President and Chief
Executive Officer of  McKenzie Bay International, Ltd.; (the "Company"),
certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes- Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, that: (1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2003(the "Report") fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and (2) the information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.

Dated: August 19, 2003

/s/Gary L. Westerholm
---------------
Gary L. Westerholm
President and Chief Executive Officer
#### Raymond D. JACKSON, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNKNOWN GILES; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 01-55490.

D.C. No. CV-97-02350-CAS.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 22, 2002 *.

Decided July 30, 2002.

Before BROWNING, KOZINSKI, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Raymond D. Jackson, Sr., a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court’s summary judgment for defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violation of his First and Eighth Amendment rights. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, *Barnett v. Centoni*31 F.3d 813, 815 (9th Cir.1994) (per curiam), and affirm.

With respect to his claim that prison officials were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs, the district court properly granted summary judgment for defendants because Jackson’s evidence demonstrated, at most, a difference of opinion about his treatment. *See Jackson v. McIntosh,*90 F.3d 330, 332 *(9th*Cir.1996).

Upon our review of the record, we conclude that the district court properly granted summary judgment for defendants because Jackson failed to establish a genuine issue as to defendants’ deliberate indifference to his safety. *See Farmer v. Brennan,*511 U.S. 825, 837, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994).

Similarly, because Jackson failed to produce evidence of a link between his own constitutionally protected activity and defendants allegedly labeling him a snitch, the district court properly granted sum*130mary judgment for defendants on Jackson’s retaliation claim. *See Pratt v. Rowland,*65 F.3d 802, 807 (9th Cir.1995).

Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in its management of discovery. *See Little v. City of Seattle,*863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir.1988).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
II

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 218

To repeal the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, and for other

purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 12 (legislative day, JANUARY 10), 1995

Mr. MCCONNELL (for himself and Mr. COVERDELL) introduced the following

bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Rules and

Administration

A BILL

To repeal the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, and

for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. REPEALS.

4 (a) NATIONAL VOTER REGISTRATION ACT.—The

5 National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C.

6 1973gg et seq.) is repealed.

7 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 3629 of

8 title 39, United States Code, is repealed.

Æ
EX-10.9



 EXHIBIT 10.9 

AMENDMENT 
 TO THE

 CU BANCORP 2012 CHANGE IN CONTROL PLAN 

This Amendment (this “Amendment”) to the CU Bancorp (the “Company”) 2007 Change in Control (the
“Plan”) by the Board of Directors of CU Bancorp (the “Board”) is entered into and effective as of December 15, 2016 (the “Effective Date”). 

WHEREAS, Section 1.7 of the Plan defines “Compensation” for purposes of determining the severance benefits
payable under the Plan as the base salary in effect on the date of an Eligible Employee’s termination of employment plus the average “annual bonus” paid to such Eligible Employee in each of the previous two completed fiscal years;

 WHEREAS, on March 22, 2016, the Board adopted the 2016 Management Incentive Plan (the “MIP”) for certain
executives of the Company (the “Key Executives”) for the purpose of qualifying their annual bonuses as “performance-based compensation” under Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”);

 WHEREAS, the Board intends to renew the MIP at the beginning of each fiscal year to qualify the future annual bonuses paid
to the Key Executives as “performance-based compensation” under Code Section 162(m); and 
 WHEREAS, the purpose of
this Amendment is to clarify that the term “annual bonus” for purposes of the Plan includes the annual incentives paid to the Key Executives under each MIP adopted by the Board for any fiscal year. 

NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan shall be amended as follows: 

1. The following new Section 1.2 shall be added to the Plan and the Sections in Article 1 that follow shall be renumbered accordingly:

  

	 	“1.2	“Annual Bonus” shall mean the annual incentive compensation paid to an Eligible Employee under any CU Bancorp Management Incentive Plan adopted by the Board for any fiscal year (whether paid in cash or equity)
plus any discretionary bonus paid to such Eligible Employee in any such fiscal year.” 

 2. Following the renumbering of
Article 1 (described above), Section 1.8 of the Plan shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: 
  

	 	“1.8	“Compensation” shall mean the base salary in effect on the date of an Eligible Employee’s termination of employment plus the average of the Annual Bonus paid to such Eligible Employee in each of the
previous two completed fiscal years.” 

 3. Governing Law. This Amendment shall be construed and enforced in
accordance with the law of the State of California, without giving effect to the conflict of law principles thereof. 
 4. No Other
Changes. Except as expressly modified hereby, the terms and conditions of the Plan shall continue in full force and effect. 
 [Signature
Page Follows] 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board has caused this Amendment to be executed by its duly authorized
officer as of the Effective Date. 
  

			
	CU BANCORP
		
	By:	 	 /s/ David Rainer

	Name:	 	David Rainer
	Title:	 	CEO
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Anita Wolman

	Name:	 	Anita Wolman
	Title:	 	Corporate Secretary


 [Signature Page – Amendment to the 2007 Equity and Incentive Plan as Amended and Restated
July 31, 2014]
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-1533

_____________________________

DESTIN POINTE OWNERS'

ASSOCIATION, INC., a Florida 

not-for-profit corporation,

Petitioner,

v.

DESTIN PARCEL 160, LLC,

DESTIN GUARDIAN 

CORPORATION, DESTIN POINTE 

HOLDINGS, INC., and DESTIN 

PARCEL B, LLC,

Respondents.

_____________________________

Petition for Writ of Prohibition—Original Jurisdiction.

March 12, 2019

PER CURIAM.

DENIED.

B.L. THOMAS, C.J., and WETHERELL and WINSOR, JJ., concur.
2

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

David A. Theriaque and S. Brent Spain of Theriaque & Spain, 

Tallahassee, for Petitioner.

Dana C. Matthews and Daniel C. O'Rourke of Matthews & Jones, 

LLP, Destin, for Respondents.