alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6512

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

VINH VAN DAO,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (CR-94-507, CA-97-167-AM)

Submitted: August 14, 1997 Decided: August 21, 1997

Before NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and BUTZNER and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Vinh Van Dao, Appellant Pro Se. Lawrence Joseph Leiser, Assistant

United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997).

We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district

court. United States v. Dao, Nos. CR-94-507; CA-97-167-AM (E.D. Va.

Feb. 18, 1997). 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.

DISMISSED
#### William H. DAVIS et al., Appellants, v. Robert UNDERWOOD, Appellee

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Nov. 4, 1955.

Ralph H. Richards, Louisville, for appellants.

Harry S. McAlpin, Louisville, for ap-pellee.

CAMMACK, Judge.

The trial court directed a verdict in favor of the appellee, defendant below, proponent of a holographic will allegedly written by his deceased wife. The appellant filed a notice of appeal in the circuit court and filed the record in the office of the Clerk of the Court of Appeals.

The amount in controversy is more than $200, exclusive of interest and costs, but less than $2500. In such cases, KRS 21.080 provides that an appeal may be prosecuted “upon paying the tax and filing the record in the office of the Clerk of the Court of Appeals in the time and manner provided by law, *and entering a motion that the appeal he granted."*(Our emphasis) The provisions of this statute are mandatory and in the absence of a strict compliance therewith this Court does not obtain jurisdiction of the subject matter. RCA *8521.180 provides specifically that the record in an appeal sought under KRS 21.080 shall be accompanied by a *motion for appeal*designating the parties as appellants and appel-lees. CR 73.02(3) provides that in such cases the appeal shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal and the record shall be prepared in the same manner and time as in the case of appeals permitted as a matter of right (such as under KRS 21.060) ; but the Rule expressly states that a *motion for an appeal*shall be made at the time the *record on*appeal is docketed in the Court of Appeals.

Since no motion for an appeal was made in the instant case, this Court does not have jurisdiction of the action and the appeal must be and is hereby dismissed.
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 17

- 4789

_____________________________
D ARRELL P ASCHAL , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County

. Waddell A. Wallace , Judge

. March 9, 2018

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
R OWE , R AY , and M AKAR , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

________ _____________________ Darrell Paschal, pro se
, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Holly N. Simcox, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
**Summary
of WebEx Communications Inc. 2005 Executive Cash Bonus
Plan**
 
 
 On April
25, 2005 the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of
WebEx Communications, Inc. (“WebEx” or “Company”) established the
performance measures for the WebEx executive cash bonus plan (“Plan”). The Plan
is not set forth in a written agreement. The Plan
covers WebEx’s chief executive officer and its other named executive officers
including WebEx’s chief operating officer. The Plan also covers other WebEx
executives who directly report to either the chief executive officer or the
chief operating officer.
 
 Each
participant in the Plan is assigned an annual target bonus which, depending on
the executive, is between 20% and 100% of the executive’s 2005 base
salary.  The Plan sets Company performance benchmarks for (i) revenue, (ii)
profits, (iii) service quality, and (iv) customers’ usage of WebEx services. The
relative weighting of these four factors in the determination of a participant’s
annual bonus is 40%, 20%, 20% and 20%, respectively. Bonuses are paid quarterly
with respect to revenue, profits and service quality benchmarks. Payment of the
bonus with respect to the fourth quarter will include the usage component along
with the other three quarterly components.
 
 In
addition to the benchmarks, the Plan sets forth minimum achievement levels in
each of the four Company performance areas. If a minimum achievement level is
not attained in one of the areas, then that component of the bonus payment
computation will be zero. In addition, if the minimum achievement level for the
profits factor is not achieved for a given quarter, there will be no bonus
payment to participants for that quarter with respect to any of the components,
regardless of attainment of minimum achievement level in the other areas. If the
Company achieves or exceeds the minimum in one or more areas including profits,
the bonus amount payable to each participant will depend on the Company’s actual
achievement relative to the four benchmarks. A bonus in excess of a
participant’s annual target bonus is possible if there is significant
over-achievement relative to the benchmarks, with the annual maximum bonus
payable under the Plan being 200% of a participant’s target bonus amount.
 
 The
Compensation Committee has the ability to reset the four benchmarks for
unanticipated events that might affect the benchmarks, such as merger and
acquisition activity.  Bonuses for sales executives are partially based on
the Plan; bonuses payable to sales executives are based 30% on the Plan and 70%
based on achievement of each executive’s sales quota .
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AND STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS OF THE COMPANY AS OF AND FOR THE QUARTER
ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2000, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                       5,427,460
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  248,016
<ALLOWANCES>                                    15,000
<INVENTORY>                                    864,942
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,714,333
<PP&E>                                       2,095,862
<DEPRECIATION>                                 378,334
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,690,763
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,001,514
<BONDS>                                          3,361
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         7,051
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,645,671
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,690,763
<SALES>                                      2,012,788
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,278,344
<CGS>                                        1,468,891
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,579,789
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               187,932
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,313,011
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,650,321)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,650,321)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,650,321)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (2.93)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.93)


</TABLE>
**Exhibit23**

**Consent ofIndependent Registered Public Accountant**

We consent to the incorporationby reference in the Registration Statements (Forms S-3, No. 333-55882, No.333-92957 and No. 333-108786) and related prospectuses of Parkway Properties,Inc., the Registration Statement (Forms S-8 on Form S-3, No. 333‐88861)and related prospectus pertaining to the Parkway Properties, Inc. EmployeeExcellence Recognition Plan, 1997 Non-Employee Directors' Stock Ownership Plan,1994 Stock Option and Long-Term Incentive Plan and 1991 Directors Stock OptionPlan, the Registration Statement (Form S-8 on Form S-3, No. 333-00311) andrelated prospectus pertaining to the Parkway Properties, Inc. 1994 Stock OptionPlan, 1991 Incentive Plan and 1991 Directors Stock Option Plan, theRegistration Statement (Form S-8, No. 333-100565) pertaining to the ParkwayProperties, Inc. 2001 Directors Stock Option Plan, and the RegistrationStatement (Form S-8, No. 333-115286) pertaining to the Parkway Properties, Inc.2003 Equity Incentive Plan and the Employee Excellence Recognition Plan of ourreport dated February 28, 2005, with respect to the consolidated financialstatements and schedules of Parkway Properties, Inc. included in this AnnualReport on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004. 

                                                                                           Ernst &Young LLP 

New Orleans, Louisiana

March 2, 2005
EXHIBIT 23 - CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

The Board of Directors
First Financial Bancorp:


We consent to  incorporation  by reference in the  registration  statements (No.
33-40954)  dated May 31,  1991 on Form S-8 of First  Financial  Bancorp and (No.
333-29201)  dated June 12,  1997 on Form S-8 of First  Financial  Bancorp of our
report dated February 23, 2001,  relating to the consolidated  balance sheets of
First  Financial  Bancorp and  subsidiaries as of December 31, 2000 and 1999 and
the  related  consolidated  statements  of  income,   stockholders'  equity  and
comprehensive  income  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 First Financial Bancorp.


                                                     /s/ KPMG LLP


Sacramento, California
March 26, 2001

                                       59
Exhibit 32.2
 SARBANES-OXLEY ACT SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION
  1.
    
    this Form 10-K for the period ended July 31, 2009 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 this Form 10-K for the period ended July 31, 2009 fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Thor
Industries, Inc. Date: September 29, 2009
    
    /S/ CHRISTIAN G. FARMANChristian G. FarmanChief Financial Officer(principal financial and accounting officer)
AMENDMENT TO THE  PHILLIPS-VAN HEUSEN CORPORATION ASSOCIATES INVESTMENT PLAN  (As amended and restated effective January 1, 2009)  AMENDMENT, dated the 26th day of March, 2009, to the Phillips-Van Heusen Corporation Associates Investment Plan (the Plan).  W I T N E S S E T H:  WHEREAS, Phillips-Van Heusen Corporation (the Company) previously amended the Plan to provide for full vesting of accounts of participants whose employment is or was terminated as a result of certain reductions in force; and  WHEREAS, the Company desires to further amend the Plan to provide full vesting of accounts of participants whose employment is terminated as a result of a reduction in force with respect to the Company's Calvin Klein retail outlet stores; and  WHEREAS, Section 15.01 the Plan reserves to the Company the right to amend the Plan at any time;  NOW, THEREFORE, effective immediately, Section 1.108 of the Plan (defining Vesting Percentage) is hereby amended by adding the following paragraph at the end thereof:  Notwithstanding anything contained herein to the contrary, the Vested Percentage of a Participant shall be one hundred (100) in the event that such Participant's employment with the Company and/or an Affiliated Corporation is involuntarily terminated as a result of (i) the discontinuance of production at the Los Angeles manufacturing facility operated by the Company's Neckwear Group with respect to products offered by the Neckwear Group's Superba Division, (ii) a reduction in force announced by the Company in January 2009, (iii) the closing of the Company's distribution facility in Breiningsville, Pennsylvania, or (iv) a reduction in force with respect to the Company's Calvin Klein retail outlet stores announced by the Company during February and/or March 2009.  IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment has been executed by the undersigned officer of Phillips-Van Heusen Corporation as evidence of its adoption as of the date first above written.  PHILLIPS-VAN HEUSEN CORPORATION  By:  /s/ David F. Kozel  Name: David F. Kozel Title:   Senior Vice President, Human Resources ATTEST:  /s/ Mark D. Fischer
<PAGE>

                                                                  EXHIBIT 10.3.3

                                THIRD AMENDMENT


                                      TO



                         EAGLE MOUNTAIN LEASE BETWEEN



                     MANAGEMENT & TRAINING CORPORATION AND



                             KAISER VENTURES INC.
















                        EFFECTIVE:    NOVEMBER 16, 1997
<PAGE>

                           THIRD AMENDMENT TO LEASE
                           ------------------------



     THIS AMENDMENT is made on November 16, 1997, by and between KAISER VENTURES
INC. (formerly KAISER STEEL RESOURCES, INC. and MANAGEMENT AND TRAINING
CORPORATION (Tenant)



     It is expressly covenanted and agreed by and between Landlord and Tenant as
follows:


ARTICLE III - TERM
------------------

     3.1 -  This section is amended to extend the term of the agreement for
            fourteen (14) months.  This Lease will, therefore, continue through
            January 31, 1999.

ARTICLE XXIV - NOTICES
----------------------

     24.1 - This section is amended to correct the name and address of the
            Landlord as follows:

                    Kaiser Ventures Inc.
                    3633 East Inland Empire Boulevard
                    Ontario, CA 91764
                    Attention:  President



     All other provisions of the Lease dated November 16, 1987, and the First
and Second Amendments thereto, remain in full force and effect and are unchanged
by this Amendment.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this THIRD AMENDMENT to the
Lease as of the day and year first above written.


Management & Training Corporation


By:  /s/ R. Russell
     ---------------------------------------
     R. Russell

Title:  V.P. Corrections
        ------------------------------------


Kaiser Ventures Inc.

By:    /s/ Gerald A. Fawcett
       -------------------------------------
       Gerald A. Fawcett

Title:  President and Chief Operating Officer
        -------------------------------------
#### Thomas N. KING’S ADMINISTRATRIX (Lucy M. King), etc., Appellants, v. Arthur J. KING et al., Appellees.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Feb. 3, 1956.

C. C. Adams, Williamstown, for appellants.

L. M. Ademan, Williamstown, for appel-lees.

PER CURIAM.

Motion for an appeal from a judgment of the Grant Circuit Court, entered in supplementary proceedings in a suit to settle a decedent’s estate, after remand of the case following affirmance by this Court of an initial judgment in the suit. See King v. King, Ky., 274 S.W.2d 656. The second judgment, now sought to be appealed from, held the administratrix personally liable for interest, in the amount of $292.87, on a sum which the first judgment had ordered her to pay into court, and held her personally liable for the Costs of the first appeal, amounting to $193.05. The judgment also denied credit for two items of $16.27 and $5.

The judgment was proper as to the interest charge. Farber’s Ex’r v. Farber, 285 Ky. 596, 148 S.W.2d 732. It also was proper as to the appeal costs, because the first appeal was primarily for the personal benefit of the administratrix. The questions concerning the other two items are not of enough significance to warrant discussion.

The motion for an appeal is overruled and the judgment is affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-25-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-28-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-25-1997
<CASH>                                          20,695
<SECURITIES>                                     3,143
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      9,292
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                35,191
<PP&E>                                          48,479
<DEPRECIATION>                                  32,644
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  51,314
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           21,039
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            15
<OTHER-SE>                                    (23,411)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    51,314
<SALES>                                        195,239
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               195,994
<CGS>                                          139,460
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  139,460
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 827
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (30,717)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       927
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (31,644)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (31,644)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (2.23)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.23)
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-7581

NATHANIEL H. WILLIAMSON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

THEODIS BECK, Secretary, North Carolina

Department of Correction,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr.,

District Judge. (CA-03-341-1)

Submitted: April 28, 2004 Decided: July 27, 2004

Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Nathaniel H. Williamson, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge,

III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh,

North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

Nathaniel H. Williamson seeks to appeal the district

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge

and dismissing as untimely his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in

a § 2254 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his

constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack

v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676,

683 (4th Cir. 2001). 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude

that Williamson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly,

we deny leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis, deny a

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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. 

DISMISSED
#### Tommy Loyd HARWELL, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 28059.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 15, 1956.

■No appearance for appellant.

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

*949PER CURIAM.

The offense is burglary with a prior conviction for an offense of like character alleged for the purpose of enhancement; the punishment, twelve years in the penitentiary.

The record on appeal contains no statement of facts or bills of exception. All proceedings appear to be regular and nothing is presented for review. The judgment is affirmed.