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

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF: MOST.-\NA I 

No. 00-45 1 

HEALTHY MOTHERS, HEALTHY 

BABIES, INC., a Montana Corporation, 

Defendant and Appellant, 

MARCIA DIAS, 

Plaintiff and Respondent. ) 

ORDER 

JOHN OLD ELK, JUNE GOODLEFT, and ?T.2~ 'E""d 3 y $ -4 v-.9 ,. - 

DANA ZIMMER, !..!% ., .:. 

, . ., 

/) 

$ $ :5 ... ,< . : %,%. 

Plaintiffs and Appellants, ) I, '$1 i : p1 , ; '; it;;! 

HEALTHY MOTHERS, HEALTHY 

BABIES, INC., a Montana Corporation, et al., 

Defendant and Respondent. ) 

It has come to the attention of this Court that two separate appeals are being pursued 

under the captioned cause number. The first is the appeal of the appellant Healthy Mothers, 

Healthy Babies, Inc. (HMHB) 60m the District Court's order of May 4, 2000, denying its 

motion for new trial and from the notice of entry of judgment filed by the plaintiff and 

respondent, Marcia Dias in the District Co~~rt. HMHB's notice of appeal was filed in this 

Court on June 5, 2000 

The second appeal is being pursued by Plaintiffs and Appellants, John Old Elk, June 
Goodleft, and Dana Zimmcr (Old Elk, et.al.). They filed their notice of appcal in thc District 

Court on October 5, 2000, from the District Court's grant of summary judymcnt in fa\w of 

HMHB, and from the District Court's denial of their Rule 59(g) motion. Their notice of 

appeal was filed in this Court on November 29,2000. 

As indicated above, the first appeal stems from a judgment in favor of Marcia Dias 

and against HMHB following a trial on the merits. The second appeal stems from an entry 

of summary judgment in favor of HMHB and against Old Elk, et.al., on their claims against 

HMHB. Accordingly, the two appeals involve separate and distinct factual and legal issues, 

which will require independent consideration. For this reason, and in the interests of order 

and economy, 

THE CLERK OF THIS COURT IS HEREBY DIRECTED to assign to the appeal 

presented by Old Elk, et.al., as appellants, against HMHB, as respondents, a separate cause 

number from the appeal involving the claims between HMHB, appellant, and Marcia Dias, 

respondent. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court shall notify all parties in 

both appeals of the new cause number being assigned to the Old Elk, et.al. appeal, and the 

parties to the Old Elk, et.al. appeal are hereafter directed to utilize the newly-assigned cause 

number on all future filings in this Court. 

'& DATED this day of June, 200 1. 
Justices
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF TPI ENTERPRISES, INC. FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED 
OCTOBER 6, 1996, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-29-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-15-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-06-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           2,101
<SECURITIES>                                     5,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 7,101
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   7,101
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,463
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       4,638<F1>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     7,101<F1>
<SALES>                                        195,219
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               195,219
<CGS>                                          179,708
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  191,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,596  
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,408
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,408
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,408<F2>
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0<F3>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0<F3>
<FN>
<F1>THE COMPANY ADOPTED LIQUIDATION BASIS ACCOUNTING DURING THE QUARTER ENDED
OCTOBER 6, 1996 AS DISCUSSED IN NOTES 1 AND 2 TO THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.  AS A RESULT, OTHER STOCKHOLDERS EQUITY REFLECTS NET ASSETS IN
EXCESS OF LIABILITIES AT OCTOBER 6, 1996.
<F2>NET INCOME FOR THE PERIOD INCLUDES A GAIN OF $7.1 MILLION IN CONNECTION
WITH THE SALE OF THE MAJORITY OF THE COMPANY'S ASSETS TO SHONEY'S, INC. SEE
NOTES 1 AND 2 TO THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
<F3>DUE TO THE LIQUIDATION BASIS OF ACCOUNTING BEING ADOPTED BY THE COMPANY,
EPS INFORMATION IS NOT APPLICABLE.
</FN>
        


                                    

</TABLE>
#### Alfredo DELGADO v. STATE.

No. 27028.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 19, 1954.

No attorney on appeal .for appellant.

Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

GRAVES, Presiding Judge.-

The conviction is for bigamy. The punishment assessed is confinement in the state penitentiary for a term of five years.

Since perfecting his appeal, the appellant has filed a written motion, duly verified, requesting the dismissal thereof. The motion is granted and the appeal is dismissed.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17

- 40538 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
PEDRO GONZALEZ

- GARCIA, also known as Roberto Perez Gonzalez , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 2:17

- CR

- 11

- 1

Before JONES, DENNIS, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Pedro Gonzalez

Garcia 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). Gonzalez

- Garcia h a s not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED December 20, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 17-40538 Document: 00514280146 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/20/2017No. 17

- 40538

2 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 17-40538 Document: 00514280146 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/20/2017
... 

t<.ECEIVEO 

JUN - 6 2012 

HEARING DOCKET 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHJNGTON, D.C. 

In the Matter of Diamond Air Charter, Inc. 

FAA Docket No. CPIOEA0004 

DMS No. FAA-2010-0620 

Judge Sullivan 

AGENCY'S SUBMISSION OF PROPOSED PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE 

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), by counsel, and hereby submits its 

procedural schedule. Counsel for Respondent has indicated that he concurs in this 

proposed schedule, which contains the following deadlines: 

September 1, 2012: Filing discovery requests. 

October 1, 2012: Filing discovery responses. 

November 1, 2012: Witness list/Evdientiary Exchange due date 

December 1, 2012: Dispositive motions: 

December 16, 2012: Answer to dispositive motion 

December 26, 2012: Reply of moving party 

February 3, 2013: Telcon re dispositive motion 

March 3, 2013: Filing pre-hear brief 
April 2013-Hearing. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Alfred R. Johnso~ Jr. 

Regional CoWISel ~ s ( ? I ( (?., 

By: Zachary~ U 

Attorney 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1 Aviation Plaza 

Jamaica, NY 11434 

718 553-3258 

718 995-5699 

2 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that the foregoing Agency's Submission of Proposed Procdural 

Schedule has been sent via first class mail and e-mail to the following: 

Gregory S. Winton 

Aviation Law Experts , LLC 

One Research Court, Suite 450 

Rockville, MD 20850 

Email: Greg@AviationLawExperts.Com 

The Honorable J.E. Sullivan, Administrative Judge 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East Building Ground Floor, Room E12-320 

Washington, DC 20590 

Email: Diane.Mays@DOT.GOV 

I hereby certify that the foregoing Agency's Submission of Proposed Procedural 

Schedule has been sent via first class mail to the following: 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building, Suite 2W1000 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Room924A 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Date: JUN - 1 2012 ------ ~'d-{_ · saHooks 

Paralegal Specialist 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of Regional Counsel 

1 Aviation Plaza 

Jamaica, NY 11434 

3
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [TA-W-37,411 and 411A]

                    In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273) the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance on March 28, 2000, applicable to workers of the Monet Group, Incorporated East Providence, Rhode Island and New York, New York. The notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on April 21, 2000 (65 FR 21473).                

At the request of the State agency, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers are engaged in the production of fashion jewelry. New information received from the company shows that Liz Caliborne Incorporated, through a newly formed wholly owned subsidiary, Monet International, Incorporated, purchased the assets of The Monet Group, Incorporated as of July 26, 2000. Information also shows that workers separated after July 26, 2000 from employment at the subject firm, had their wages reported under two separate unemployment insurance (UI) tax account; Monet Group, Incorporated and Monet International, Incorporated. 

Accordingly, the Department is amending the certification to properly reflect this matter.

The amended notice applicable to TA-W-37,411 is hereby issued as follows: 

“All workers of Monet Group, Incorporated, now known as Monet International, Incorporated, a subsidiary of Liz Caliborne, Incorporated, East Providence, Rhode Island (TA-W-37,411) and New York, New York (TA-W-37,411A) who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after May 5, 2000 through March 28, 2002 are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974.” 

Signed at Washington, D.C. This 4th day of October, 2000.

Linda G. Poole, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. 00-26718 Filed 10-17-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 204 (Friday, October 20, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63064-63065]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-27067]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army


Notice of Intent to Grant an Exclusive or Partially Exclusive 
License to Optical Crossing, Inc.

AGENCY: U.S. Army Research Laboratory, DoD.

ACTION:  Notice of intent.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with 37 CFR 404 et seq., the Department of the 
Army hereby gives notice of its intent to grant to Optical Crossings, 
Inc., a corporation having its principle place of business at 411 N. 
Central Ave. Suite 70, Glendale, CA 91203, an exclusive or partially 
exclusive license relative to a patented ARL technology (U.S. Patent # 
5,579,331; ``Delta-strained quantum-well semiconductor lasers and 
optical amplifiers''; Shen, et al; November 26,

[[Page 63065]]

1996.). Anyone wishing to object to the granting of this license has 60 
days from the date of this notice to file written objections along with 
supporting evidence, if any.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael D. Rausa, U.S. Army Research 
Laboratory, Office of Research and Technology Applications, ATTN: 
AMSRL-CS-TT/Bldg 459, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland 21005-5425, 
Telephone: (410) 278-5028.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: None.

Gregory D. Showalter,
Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 00-27067 Filed 10-19-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710-08-M
#### REDMAN v. REDMAN et al.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

June 8, 1951.

H. K. Spear, Somerset, for appellant.

C. Homer Neikirk, Somerset, for appel-lees.

CAMMACK, Chief Justice.

John M. Redman brought this action to have established a boundary line between his property and that of the appellees on the basis of a parol agreement. The controversy hinges on whether all of the appellant’s property is on the south side of the Cooper Mill Road, in Pulaski County, or whether his line runs on the north side of the road. There is no claim that any of the property of the appellees, who live on the north side of the road, lies beyond the road. The appeal is from a judgment which holds, in effect, that the road is the correct boundary between the property of the appellant and the appellees.

It is the contention of the appellant that Claude Jasper, the county surveyor, was asked by the parties to run the agreed line in 1945. The proof, however, including that of Mr. Jasper, indicates that it was the appellant who asked Mr. Jasper to run the line from calls furnished by him. The appellant attempted to show also that, after the line was run in 1945, the appellees, or the predecessors in title of some of them, accepted the agreed line and acquiesced in its location for approximately a year. On the other hand, the proof for the appellees is to the effect that they did not agree that a survey be made to settle a dispute as to the location of the division line. Also they denied that they accepted or acquiesced in the location of the line run by Mr. Jasper in 1945.

It has long been held in this jurisdiction that owners of adjacent lands may settle bona fide boundary disputes either in writing or by parol agreements. Steele v. University of Kentucky, 295 Ky. 187, 174 S.W.2d, 129, 132, and cases cited therein. The applicable principles of law were summed up in the Steele case in the following language: “Accepting, as applicable law, each and every case cited by *554appellants, we find the dominant principles to be that there must exist ownership or proprietary interest in the lands in dispute; that there is a bona fide controversy as to boundary line between the properties in controversy; that there must be an agreement between the parties to the controversy, and that possession must be taken in accord with the agreement, and acquiescence for a reasonable or considerable time. * * *”

In the case before us the proof falls far short of meeting the requirements just stated.

Judgment affirmed.
Exhibit 32.1

Certification 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), I, Timothy J. Casey, President and Chief Executive Officer of K-Sea General Partner GP LLC, as general partner of
K-Sea General Partner L.P., the general partner of K-Sea Transportation Partners L.P. (the "Partnership"), hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge,
that:



Dated:
September 14, 2009

/s/ TIMOTHY J. CASEYName:

Timothy J. CaseyTitle:

President and Chief Executive Officer


---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5 <LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN TCI COMMUNICATIONS, INC.'S QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q
FOR THE PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1995 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000096903
<NAME> TCI COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      220
<ALLOWANCES>                                        24
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                          10,290
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,583
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  19,529
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                         12,143
<COMMON>                                             1
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,912
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    19,529
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 3,741
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,081
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   735
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    47
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 713
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (75)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (25)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (50)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (50)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Order entered July 21, 2021

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05
- 21
- 00478
- CV
SHERRY BEARD , ET AL. , Appellant s

V. MCGREGOR BANCSHARES, INC. , ET AL. , Appellee s On Appea l from the 193rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC
- 20
- 04466

O RDER Before the Court is appellants’ July 20, 2021 motion for an extension of time
to file their brief on the merits. We GRANT the motion and extend the tim e to August 27, 2021

.
/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III CHIEF JUSTICE
## S IXTH 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________ Case No. 6D 20 2 3

- 2055 Lower Tribunal No s
. CF20

- 005665

- XX, CF21

- 00420

- XX, and CF21

- 005205

- XX

_____________________________ K ELVIN D EONTAY E ADS , Appellant ,

v. S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee

.

_____________________________ Appeal from the Circuit Court for Polk County

. Lori A. Winstead , Judge. July 30, 2024
PER CURIAM

. AFFIRMED

. NARDELLA , WOZNIAK and BROWNLEE , JJ., c oncur.

Howard L. “Rex” Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Megan Olson , Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Kelvin Deontay Eads, Polk City, pro se. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Helene S. Parnes , Senior Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED
Letter Agreement Between Blockbuster Inc. and Larry J. Zine



 Exhibit 10.1 
 [Blockbuster Letterhead] 
 February 21, 2006 
 Mr. Larry J. Zine 
 c/o Blockbuster Inc. 
 1201 Elm Street 
 Dallas, Texas 75270 
 Dear Larry: 
 Blockbuster Inc. (“Blockbuster”) and you previously entered into an employment agreement
dated October 13, 2000 (the “Agreement”), pursuant to which you serve as Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Blockbuster. Paragraph 17 of the Agreement provides that the Agreement may be changed only by a
writing signed by both parties. 
 Blockbuster and you now desire to amend (this “Amendment”) the provisions of Paragraphs 8(b) and
(c) of the Agreement in accordance with the terms of this Amendment. 
 As used in this Amendment, terms that begin with an initial capital letter have
the same meanings as such terms have in the Agreement unless a contrary meaning is specified in this Amendment. 
 For good and valuable consideration, the
receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, Blockbuster and you agree to the following: 
  

	1.	Paragraph 8(b) of the Agreement is hereby amended and restated as follows: 

 (b) Termination Without Cause. Blockbuster may terminate your employment under this Agreement without Cause at any time during the
Term by written notice to you, or, after December 31, 2006, you may terminate your employment by written notice to Blockbuster. 
  

	2.	Paragraph 8(c) of the Agreement is hereby amended and restated as follows: 

 (c) Termination Payments/Benefits. If your employment terminates under Paragraph 8(b), you will thereafter receive, less applicable
withholding taxes, and conditioned on your execution of a General Release and Waiver of Claims substantially in the form attached hereto as an Addendum, a lump sum payment in the amount of One Million, One Hundred Eighty-Nine Thousand, Eight Hundred
Dollars and No Cents ($1,189,800.00). Your lump sum payment will be payable six (6) months after your termination unless you elect to have the payment made earlier. 








	3.	The General Release and Waiver of Claims you must sign to receive Termination Payment/Benefits does not, and is not intended to, relieve Blockbuster of any indemnification
agreements or obligations owed to you. 

  

	4.	In all other respects, the Agreement remains unchanged and in full force and effect. 

 If the foregoing correctly sets forth our understanding, please sign, date and return all four (4) copies of this Amendment to the undersigned. After this Amendment has been executed by both parties, it shall
constitute a binding Amendment to the Agreement. 
  

			
	Sincerely,
	
	/s/ John F. Antioco
	 John F. Antioco

	 Chairman and Chief Executive Officer


 ACCEPTED AND AGREED: 
  

									
	/s/ Larry J. Zine	 		 	February 21, 2006
	 Larry J. Zine
	 		 	Date