alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 11
<TABLE>

                     THE STRIDE RITE CORPORATION
                  COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                 (In Thousands except Per Share Data)


<CAPTION>
                                                 Three Months Ended
                                       Feb. 28, 1997          March 1, 1996
                                     -----------------      ----------------

Net income applicable to common
<S>                                       <C>                     <C>
   shares                                 $4,120                  $1,378

Calculation of shares:

  Weighted average number of
   common shares outstanding              49,593                  49,546

  Common shares  attributable to 
   assumed  exercise of dilutive
   stock options and stock
   purchase rights using the
   treasury stock method                     369                     235

Average common shares and common
   equivalents outstanding during
   the period                             49,962                  49,781
                                          ======                  ======

Net income per common share                 $.08                    $.03
                                            ====                    ====
</TABLE>














                                                        16

<PAGE>
Exhibit C

Case 6:20-cv-00542-ADA Document 29-3 Filed 10/30/20 Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

WACO DIVISION

WSOU INVESTMENTS, LLC D/B/A 

BRAZOS LICENSING AND 

DEVELOPMENT,

Plaintiff,

v. 

HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO., 

LTD. and HUAWEI 

TECHNOLOGIES USA INC.,

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00533-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00534-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00535-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00536-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00537-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00538-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00539-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00540-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00541-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00542-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00543-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00544-ADA

[DRAFT] DISCOVERY ORDER

Following the Markman hearings, and pursuant to the Court’s Order Governing Proceedings,

the following discovery limits will apply to the twelve cases referenced above:

 Interrogatories: 8 common interrogatories per side (which can be used across all of the

twelve cases above) and 12 case-specific interrogatories (which can be used only for that

specific case);

 Requests for Admission: 10 common RFAs (which can be used across all of the twelve

cases above) and 20 case-specific RFAs (which can be used only for that specific case);

 Requests for Production: 10 common RFPs (which can be used across all of the twelve

cases above) and 35 case-specific RFPs (which can be used only for that specific case);

 Fact (Party) Depositions: 10 common hours per side (which can be used across all of the

twelve cases above) and 21 case-specific hours (which can be used only for that specific

case);

 Fact (Third-Party) Depositions: 21 case-specific hours (which can be used only for that

specific case);

Page | 1

Case 6:20-cv-00542-ADA Document 29-3 Filed 10/30/20 Page 2 of 3
Page | 2

 Expert Depositions: 7 hours per expert/per report (unless the expert is opining in 

numerous cases, in which case expert depositions are limited to 7 hours per expert/per 

report for the first case, and 4 additional hours for each additional case in which the expert 

provides a report). 

Case 6:20-cv-00542-ADA Document 29-3 Filed 10/30/20 Page 3 of 3
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                            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 Tektronix, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended February 24, 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Colin
L. Slade, Senior 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 to the best of my knowledge:

     (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.

Dated: April 4, 2007


/s/ COLIN L. SLADE
-------------------------------------
Colin L. Slade
Senior Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer
FILED

March 17, 2000

Cecil Crowson, Jr.

Appellate Court Clerk

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON

STATE OF TENNESSEE, )

)

Appellee, ) C. C. A. NO. W1999-01728-CCA-R3-CD

)

 vs. ) MADISON COUNTY

)

CARLOS E. BURRIS, ) No. 97-321-22; 97-812

)

Appellant. )

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court upon the state’s motion to affirm the trial

court judgment by order pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. 

The appellant is appealing the trial court’s revocation of his probation. After a hearing

on the matter, the trial court found that the appellant violated the terms and conditions

of his probation. The appellant and his probation officer testified at the hearing.

A trial court may revoke probation and order the imposition of the original

sentence upon a finding by a preponderance of the evidence that the person has

violated a condition of probation. T.C.A. § 40-35-311(e). The decision to revoke

probation rests within the sound discretion of the trial court. State v. Mitchell, 810

S.W.2d 733, 735 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991). Revocation of probation is subject to an

abuse of discretion standard of review, rather than a de novo standard. State v.

Harkins, 811 S.W.2d 79 (Tenn. 1991). Discretion is abused only if the record contains

no substantial evidence to support the conclusion of the trial court that a violation of

probation has occurred. Id.; State v. Gregory, 946 S.W.2d 829, 832 (Tenn. Crim. App.

1997). Proof of a violation need not be established beyond a reasonable doubt, and

the evidence need only show that the trial judge exercised a conscientious and

intelligent judgment, rather than acting arbitrarily. Gregory, 946 S.W.2d at 832; State v.

Leach, 914 S.W.2d 104, 106 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995).
2

Having reviewed the record in light of the appellant’s argument, we find

that the evidence fully supports the trial court’s action. The appellant has simply failed

to show how the trial court abused its discretion.

Accordingly, the state’s motion is granted. It is hereby ORDERED that the

judgement of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 20, Rules of the Court of

Criminal Appeals. Costs of this appeal shall be assessed to the state.

______________________________

DAVID G. HAYES, JUDGE

______________________________

 JOE G. RILEY, JUDGE

______________________________

JOHN EVERETT WILLIAMS, JUDGE
**EXHIBIT 32.2****CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER UNDERSECTION 906****OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**I, Gary Blair, hereby certify that the annual report onForm 10-K of Block Communications, Inc. (the“Registrant”) for the year ended December 31,2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission onthe date hereof (the “Report”), fully complies withthe requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Registrant.     /s/ Gary J. Blair           Name: Gary J. Blair Title:     Executive Vice-President/Chief Financial OfficerDated: March 24, 2005**Supplemental Information to be Furnished With Reports FiledPursuant to Section 15(d) of the Act by Registrants WhichHave Not Registered Securities Pursuant to Section 12 ofthe Act**     No proxy statement, form of proxy or other proxy solicitingmaterial has been, and it is not currently anticipated that anysuch material will be, sent to more than ten of theregistrant’s security holders with respect to any annual orother meeting of security holders in 2005.     No annual report to security holders covering theregistrant’s fiscal year ended December 31, 2004 haspreviously been sent to security holders, and it is notcurrently anticipated that any such report other than thisAnnual Report on Form 10-K will be sent to theRegistrant’s security holders.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 202 (Wednesday, October 18, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 62319]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-26502]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[MO 114-1114; FRL-6885-7]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of 
Missouri; Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Dent 
Township

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA proposes to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) 
revision submitted by the state of Missouri and Missouri's request to 
redesignate the lead nonattainment area in western Iron County, 
Missouri, to attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards 
(NAAQS). EPA proposes to approve the maintenance plan for this area 
including a consent order which was submitted with the redesignation 
request, and also proposes to approve the revision to Missouri's 
Restriction of Emissions of Lead From Specific Lead Smelter-Refinery 
Installations rule which ensures the permanent and enforceable emission 
reductions by clarifying the emissions limits for the Doe Run Resource 
Recycling Facility, and removes the text which could have allowed this 
facility to resume operation as a primary smelter.
    In the final rules section of today's Federal Register, EPA is 
approving the state's SIP revision and redesignation request as a 
direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this 
as a noncontroversial action and anticipates no relevant adverse 
comments to this action. A detailed rationale for the approval is set 
forth in the direct final rule. If no relevant adverse comments are 
received in response to this action, no further activity is 
contemplated in relation to this action. If EPA receives relevant 
adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all 
public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule 
based on this proposed action. EPA will not institute a second comment 
period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting on this 
action should do so at this time.

DATES: Comments on this proposed action must be received in writing by 
November 17, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to Kim Johnson, Environmental 
Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th 
Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kim Johnson at (913) 551-7975.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: See the information provided in the direct 
final rule which is located in the rules section of today's Federal 
Register.

    Dated: September 27, 2000.
Dennis Grams,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.
[FR Doc. 00-26502 Filed 10-17-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 23

- 00384

- CR

Juan SANCHEZ

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 290th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019CR11560

Honorable Jennifer Peña

, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE CHAPA

, JUSTICE WATKINS , AND JUSTICE RODRIGUEZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is

AFFIRMED.

SIGNED July 31, 2024.

_____________________________ Beth Watkins, Justice
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 00-1988

___________

Kansas Bankers Surety Company, *

*

Appellee, *

*

v. *

*

First Premier Bank, N.A.; *

T. Denny Sanford, *

*

Appellants. *

__________ Appeals from the United States 

District Court for the District of

No. 00-2111 South Dakota.

__________

 [UNPUBLISHED]

Kansas Bankers Surety Company, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. *

*

First Premier Bank, N.A.; *

T. Denny Sanford, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: December 11, 2000

Filed: December 19, 2000
-2-

___________

Before LOKEN, HEANEY, and FAGG, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

First Premier Bank, N.A. obtained directors and officers insurance from Kansas

Bankers Surety Company. After First Premier's chief executive officer, T. Denny

Sanford, was sued in South Dakota state court, Kansas Bankers brought this

declaratory judgment action asserting it had no duty to defend Sanford. Kansas

Bankers and First Premier filed opposing motions for summary judgment, and the

district court granted Kansas Bankers's motion. Applying South Dakota law, the

district court concluded Kansas Bankers had no duty to defend because the claims

against Sanford in the state-court action fall outside policy coverage under the personal

profit exclusion. The district court found no need to decide the issue of whether First

Premier and Sanford complied with the policy's notice provisions, and declined to

award attorney's fees or costs. First Premier and Sanford appeal asserting all of their

claims did not fall within the personal profit exclusion, and Kansas Bankers crossappeals on the notice issue. Having carefully considered the record, we affirm this

diversity case on the basis of the district court's memorandum opinion and order. See

8th Cir. R. 47B. 

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION
ZACHARY JOHNSON, et al., Plaintiffs,
vs. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, et al., Defendants Case No. 1:12-cv-964 Weber, J. Litkovitz, M.J. 

### ORDER Plaintiffs, inmates at the South Mississippi Correctional Institution in Leakesville, Mississippi, bring this pro se civil rights action against United States Attorney General Eric Holder, Jr.; Attorney General ofthe State ofMississippi Jim Hood; federaljudges Keith Starrett, James L. Dennis, E. Grady JollyJr., Carolyn Dineen King, Jerry E. Smith, Patrick E. Higginbotham, and Royce C. Lamberth; and United States Department ofJustice Director ofthe Torts Branch, Phyllis J. Pyles. PlaintiffJohnson has filed an application to proceed informa pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Venue lies in thejudicial district where either all defendants reside or where the claim
arose. Al-Muhaymin v. Jones, 895 F.2d 1147, 1148 (6th Cir. 1990); 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). The individual defendants reside in Washington, D.C., Jackson, Mississippi, Hattiesburg, Mississippi, New Orleans, Louisiana, Houston, Texas, and Austin, Texas. None ofthe defendants reside in the Southern District ofOhio. The claims asserted in the complaint relate to events that are alleged to have occurred in Washington, D.C., and not the Southern District ofOhio. Therefore, this Court is not the proper venue for plaintiffs' claims. "Thedistrict court ofa district inwhich is filed a caselaying venuein the wrong division or district shall dismiss, orifitbein theinterest of justice, transfer such caseto any district ordivisionin which it could have been brought." 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). Since this district is the improper
venue for plaintiffs' claims againstthe defendants, the Court shall transferthis action to the United States District Court for the District ofColumbia, for further proceedings. Accordingly, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

### § 1404(a), the Clerk ofCourts is hereby DIRECTED TO TRANSFER this case to the United States District Court for the District ofColumbia, for ruling on plaintiffs informapauperis application and all further proceedings. IT 

### IS SO ORDERED.

Date:

# ~~~~;<_

# 6.0~~ United States Magistrate Judge

2
Exhibit 10.1C


 


Objectives for Executive Officers Under


Annual Incentive Compensation Plan for
Textron Employees


 


•                  Achieving
earnings per share performance target: 70%


 


•                  Achieving
specified leadership initiatives, including financial goals and the achievement
of certain strategic and business initiatives, including (but not limited to)
six sigma, customer growth, talent development, supply
chain information technology and compliance goals: 30%.


 


Potential multiplier based on
return on invested capital (ROIC): Up to 200%


 


Under the
Textron Annual Incentive Compensation Plan, target annual incentive payments
are recommended by the Organization and Compensation Committee (the “Committee”)
of the Board of Directors and approved by the full Board.  The targets for Executive Officers can range
from 50% to 100% of the Executive Officer’s base salary.  The amount actually paid generally can range
from zero, if the threshold level of actual performance relating to target
performance objectives is not achieved, to no more
than twice the target award level.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

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.

May 28, 2019

s0520 

# Order

Clerk May 28, 2019

157985(35)

In re MANWELL

_________________________________________

JONATHAN ERNEST MANWELL,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v SC: 157985

COA: 341965

MACOMB CIRCUIT COURT,

Defendant

- Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion fo r reconsideration of this Court’s February 4,

2019 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that

reconsideration of our previous order is warranted. MCR 7.311(G).
Exhibit 10.2

### AMENDMENT NUMBER 1  TO  SUPPLEMENTAL RETIREMENT AGREEMENT

This Amendment Number 1 to
Supplemental Retirement Agreement is made and entered into as of the 29th day  of March,
2004, by and between PATHMARK STORES, INC., a Delaware corporation (the Company),
and Frank Vitrano  (the Executive), residing at 2 Thatchwood Court, North
Brunswick, New Jersey 08902.

WHEREAS, the Company and
the Executive are parties to the Supplemental Retirement Agreement between the  Company
and the Executive dated as of March 1, 2000 (the Agreement);

WHEREAS, the Company and
the Executive desire to make certain amendments to the Agreement, as  hereinafter set
forth;

NOW, THEREFORE, for good
and valuable consideration receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the Company  and the
Executive agree to amend the Agreement as follows:

(1)  Section 1 of the
Agreement is hereby amended by the addition of the following Section 1.2A to  read as
follows:

1.2A Applicable
Dollar Amount means $250,000; provided, however, that such amount shall be
increased to $440,000 on the earliest to occur of (i) January 1, 2007, (ii) death, (iii)
Disability, or (iv) a Change of Control, in each case so long as Executive is employed
by the Company on such date.


(2)  Section 1 of the
Agreement is hereby amended by the addition of the following Section 1.5A to  read as
follows:

1.5A Change of
Control means a Change of Control as defined in the Pathmark Stores, Inc. 2000
Employee Equity Plan as amended as of June 13, 2002.


(3)  Section 2.a. of the
Agreement is amended to read in its entirety as follows:

a.  Unreduced
Supplemental Retirement Benefit is equal to the sum of 30% of the  Executives
Average Final Compensation after completion of 10 years of Vesting Service, plus 1% of
the  Executives Average Final Compensation multiplied by each additional year of
Vesting Service in excess  of 10; provided, however, that in no event shall the Executives
Unreduced Supplemental Retirement  Benefit exceed the lesser of (i) 40% of his Average
Final Compensation, or (ii) the Applicable Dollar  Amount; and




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the
Company and the Executive have caused this Amendment Number 1 to Supplemental  Retirement
Agreement to be executed effective as of the 29th day of  March, 2004.

|                                                  | PATHMARK STORES, INC.
|------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------
|ATTEST:                                          
|/s/ Marc A. Strassler
Marc A. Strassler
Secretary | By
#### HILL v. STATE.

No. 23015.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 20, 1944.

John Glass, of Tyler, for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Upon appellant’s plea of guilty to a charge of unlawfully carrying a pistol his punishment was by‘ the court assessed at six months’ confinement in the county jail.

No statement of facts or bills of exception are in the record. In his motion for new trial appellant set up newly discovered evidence, which, of course, cannot be appraised in the state of the record.

The judgment is affirmed.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

FREDERICK BERNARD THOMAS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D19-2548

[March 24, 2021]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach 

County; John Joseph Murphy, Judge; L.T. Case No. 502015CF008185B.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Timothy Wang, Assistant Public 

Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kimberly T. Acuña, 

Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

KLINGENSMITH, J.

Frederick Bernard Thomas appeals his conviction and sentence for grand 

theft and conspiracy to commit grand theft. We affirm his conviction without 

comment but reverse to correct a scrivener’s error.

The trial court sentenced Thomas concurrently to twenty years for grand theft 

and ten years for conspiracy to commit grand theft. Thomas moved to correct 

his sentence because the written judgment incorrectly listed his conspiracy 

conviction as a first-degree felony. The trial court did not issue a ruling within 

sixty days, and the motion was deemed denied. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 

3.800(b)(2)(B). This appeal followed.

This court reviews a motion to correct a sentencing error under a de novo 

standard because it presents a pure question of law. See Kittles v. State, 31 So. 

3d 283, 284 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800 

allows a trial court to correct a scrivener’s error. See Willard v. State, 22 So. 3d 

864, 864 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). A “scrivener’s error refers to ‘clerical or ministerial

errors in a criminal case that occur in the written sentence, judgment, or order 

of probation or restitution.’” J.D. v. State, 849 So. 2d 458, 459 (Fla. 4th DCA 

2003) (quoting Ashley v. State, 850 So. 2d 1265, 1268 n. 3, (Fla. 2003)).
2

Under section 777.04(c), Florida Statutes (2015), conspiracy is a seconddegree felony “if the offense attempted, solicited, or conspired to is a life felony 

or a felony of the first degree.” Thomas was convicted of grand theft, a firstdegree felony, making his conspiracy conviction a second-degree felony. The trial 

court erred when it did not correct the written judgment to reflect this. The State 

properly concedes this error. 

We reverse and remand for the trial court to correct the written judgment to 

reflect that the conspiracy to commit grand theft conviction is a second-degree 

felony. Thomas does not have to be present for this correction. See Lucas v. 

State, 247 So. 3d 23, 24 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018).

Affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded with instructions.

CIKLIN and CONNER, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.