alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### GILBERT v. STATE.

No. 20211.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 22, 1939.

Gossett, Gossett & King, of Longview, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

HAWKINS, Judge.

Appellant was charged by indictment with forgery and passing a forged instru*299ment, and by further averments in the indictment it was alleged that he had been twice theretofore convicted of felonies of like character in order to invoke the habitual criminal statute. Judgment was entered against appellant fixing his punishment at life imprisonment in the penitentiary.

The record is before this court without a statement of facts. We observe, however, that the transcript shows no notice of appeal nor sentence against appellant. Both are indispensable to give this court jurisdiction.

TJie appeal is dismissed.
##### 



EXHIBIT 10.1
 AMENDED & RESTATED
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
    Employment
 Positions with the Company
 Time Commitment
 Term
 Duties and Responsibilities




---



##### 



Compensation
 Base Salary
 Bonus
 Outstanding Equity Awards
 2




---



##### 



Benefits Schedule A Schedule A 1 2
 Reimbursement for Expenses
 Termination
 Disability or Death
 3




---



##### 



Termination for Cause
 Termination Without Cause
 Voluntary Termination.
 4




---



##### 



Effect of Termination of Employment
 Voluntary Termination; Termination for Cause; Termination
for Death or Disability.
 Termination Without Cause. Schedule B
 Forfeiture of Rights.
 5




---



##### 



Compliance with Code Section 409A.
 Tax Withholdings
 Confidentiality
  6




---



##### 



Restrictive Covenant
 Schedule C Schedule C
   7




---



##### 



Company Right to Inventions
 Impact on Other Agreements provided however
 8




---



##### 



Representations and Agreements of Employee
 Impact on Change in Control Employment Agreement
 Cooperation with Litigation
 General Release of Claims
 9




---



##### 



Voluntary Execution by Employee
 Public Disclosure
 Enforcement
 Remedies; Survival
    10




---



##### 



Notices
 
  st
 Severability
 Non-Waiver
 Entire Agreement
 Assignment
 11




---



##### 



Binding Effect
 Choice of Law and Forum Selection
 Headings
 Construction
 12




---



##### 



ATTILA T. LORINCZ/s/ Attila T. LorinczDIGENE CORPORATIONBy:
    
    /s/ Daryl J. Faulkner

Name: Daryl J. Faulkner
Title: President and Chief Executive Officer
 13
#### In the Matter of Fermin Flores, Petitioner, v Louis F. Mann, as Superintendent of Shawangunk Correctional Facility, et al., Respondents.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Clinton County) to review a determination of respondent Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Contrary to petitioner’s argument, the misbehavior report provided him with adequate notice of the charges against him *(see, Matter of Vogelsang v Coombe,*105 AD2d 913, *affd*66 NY2d 835). Furthermore, petitioner’s written statements, in addition to the unequivocal testimony of the correction officer who wrote the misbehavior report that petitioner pushed and shoved other correction officers, constituted substantial evidence to support the determination that he was guilty of violent conduct and interference *(see, Matter of Fletcher v Coughlin,*161 AD2d 869).

Determination confirmed, and petition dismissed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Casey, Weiss and Mercure, JJ., concur.
#### Cheryl Colabella et al., Respondents, v Europa International, Inc., Appellant.

In an action to recover damages pursuant to General Business Law § 198-b relating to the sale of two used motor vehicles, the defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Marbach, J.), entered June 26, 1989, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as to the used motor vehicle purchased by and registered to the plaintiff Cheryl Colabella, and granted the plaintiffs’ cross motion for leave to amend the complaint.

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

The defendant asserted that the plaintiff Cheryl Colabella lacked standing to bring this action under General Business Law § 198-b, known as the "Used Car Lemon Law”, because she could not qualify as a "consumer” thereunder. The determination of whether a person is a consumer within the meaning of the statute is based upon the manner in which she uses the subject motor vehicle. In order for the purchaser to qualify as a consumer, the use must be noncommercial in nature *(see, Loomis v Maguire’s Equip. Sales,*124 AD2d 82, 84) such as for personal, family or household purposes. A review of the instant record including, *inter alia,*the plaintiffs’ answers to interrogatories and the verified amended complaint, indicates that a triable issue of fact exists as to whether Cheryl Colabella’s primary intended use of the motor vehicle registered to her individually was personal, family or household oriented *(see,*General Business Law § 198-b [a] [1], as amended by L 1990, ch 530, § 2; *Matter of Volkswagen of Am. v Friedman,*166 AD2d 709; *Chrysler Motors Corp. v Schachner,*138 Misc 2d 501, 508, *revd on other grounds*166 AD2d 683). Consequently, we find that the court correctly declined to grant summary judgment to the defendant as to the causes of action relating to Cheryl Colabella’s automobile.

We have reviewed the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J. P., Brown, Kunzeman and Miller, JJ., concur.
**UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY** NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY

2000 TRAVERWOOD ROAD ANN ARBOR, MI 48105
- 2498

OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION December 2, 2010 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Meeting with Volvo FROM: Angela Cullen, Mechanical Engineer TO: Docket EPA
- HQ
- OAR
- 2010
- 0162 This memorandum documents a meeting held on Thur sday , December 2 , 2010 b etween Volvo, EPA, and DOT and included the following individuals: Volvo: Tony

Greszler , Susan Alt, Marc Miller, Jeff Schaeffer, Dave Smith, Bob Fasnacht, and Peter Prout EPA: By ron Bunker, Cle Jackson, Rich Zhang, Chien Sze, Chuck Moulis, and Angela Cullen DOT: Kevin Green, R yan Harrington The discussion focused primarily on innovative c redits, alternative engine standards, ABT, small volume and business exemptions, and on/off

- road vehicle exemptions.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Company's Form 10-Q for the three months ended September 30, 2000.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-2001
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                               17263
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        23069
<ALLOWANCES>                                          1111
<INVENTORY>                                          25420
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     68833
<PP&E>                                               38106
<DEPRECIATION>                                       23375
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      101507
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                39141
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                           8580
<COMMON>                                                83
<OTHER-SE>                                           52935
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        101507
<SALES>                                              27343
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     29133
<CGS>                                                13670
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        14495
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     258
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                        866
<INCOME-TAX>                                           100
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                    766
<DISCONTINUED>                                       (1545)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                          (779)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        (0.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (0.11)



</TABLE>
March 26, 2013

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Meeting Notes for the March 6, 2013 Conference Call with Clyde Bergemann, EEC

FROM: Kelley Spence (EPA/OAR/OAQPS/SPPD/NRG)

TO: Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0640

This memorandum summarizes the conference call between Clyde Bergemann, EEC and the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on March 6, 2013. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss 

electrostatic precipitator (ESP) operation and parametric monitoring. 

Meeting Attendees:

Dennis Shanahan – Clyde Bergemann, EEC

Larry Ficus – Clyde Bergemann, EEC

John Bradfield – EPA/SPPD

Kelley Spence – EPA/SPPD

Discussion Points:

Electrostatic precipitator operation and monitoring were discussed. Electrical condition monitoring (total 

power, current, and voltage) was discussed, and it was noted that these values should be compared to 

defined conditions to estimate unit efficiency. Recovery furnace conditions such as changes in the pH in 

salt cake were discussed as these conditions impact ESP efficiency. Lime kiln conditions such as 

increased ring size can result in increased PM emissions to the ESP, but the ESP can remove the 

additional PM. Additional chambers can be added to existing ESPs to improve performance, but only if 

real estate and duct work allows. Another upgrade option is to add new controls to the inlet field to 

increase cycles for improved performance. Measuring both current and voltage should be used to monitor 

ESP operation.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 234 (Tuesday, December 5, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 75938]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-31014]


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

FEDERAL RETIREMENT THRIFT INVESTMENT BOARD


Sunshine Act Meeting

TIME AND DATES: 10:00 a.m. (EST) December 11, 2000.

PLACE: 4th Floor, Conference Room 4506, 1250 H Street, NW., Washington, 
DC.

STATUS: Open.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:
    1. Approval of the minutes of the November 13, 2000, Board member 
meeting.
    2. Thrift Savings Plan activity report by the Executive Director.
    3. Review of KPMG Peat Marwick audit reports;
    (a) ``Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration Review of the 
Policies and Procedures of the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment 
Board Administrative Staff''
    (b) ``Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration Review of the 
Thrift Savings Plan C and F Fund Investment Management Operations at 
Barclays Global Investors, N.A.''
    (c) ``Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration Review of the 
Thrift Savings Plan Billing Process at the United States Department of 
Agriculture, National Finance Center.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas J. Trabucco, Director, Office 
of External Affairs, (202) 942-1640.

    Dated: November 30, 2000.
Elizabeth S. Woodruff,
Ssecretary to the Board, Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Baord.
[FR Doc. 00-31014 Filed 12-1-00; 12:29 pm]
BILLING CODE 6760-01-M
2005 Management Bonus Program



 Exhibit 10.2 
  
 2005 Management Bonus Program 
  

The 2005 Management Bonus Program, approved by the Compensation Committee and Board of Directors of Tessera Technologies, Inc. on March 24, 2005,
provides for an incentive cash bonus target, and a maximum cash bonus amount, equal to a percentage of each executive officer’s base salary as follows: 
  

							
	 Title

	  	Target Percentage

	 	 	Maximum Percentage

	 
	 Chief Executive Officer
	  	50	%	 	100	%
	 Senior Vice Presidents (other than Chief Technical Officer)
	  	35	%	 	50	%
	 Chief Technical Officer
	  	25	%	 	35	%
	 Vice President, Finance
	  	25	%	 	35	%

  
 Bonuses under the 2005
Management Bonus Program are based on corporate performance objectives, including objectives relating to revenue and profit targets, as well as corporate strategic objectives, and in the case of executives other than the Chief Executive Officer,
certain individual or group performance objectives in addition to the corporate objectives. Under the 2005 Management Bonus Program, after the completion of the 2005 fiscal year, each executive will be eligible for a bonus that will be equal to an
amount ranging from 0% to the above-stated maximum percentage of base salary, based on the achievement of these criteria as assessed by the Compensation Committee.
SERVED: FEBRUARY 12, 2014 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, DC IN THE MATTER OF ROMNEY CYCLE CENTER DOCKET NO. FAA-2015-0203 (Civil Penalty Action) NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF PROCEEDING This proceeding (heretofore designated as Case No. 2013S0700320) has been assigned to Administrative LawJudge J.E. Sullivan. All future pleadings and other communications regarding this proceeding shall be served onthe Judge, the FAA Hearing Docket, and the other persons onthe attached Service List. _ ...**..--~?;;--**

... 

### /,/

**~--·-···-····-··-~·"·--····-** ........... / . 

# l ..

**~~**

# ../

**-~**
______...**R~nnie** A. Yoder /,_./"" / 

### Chief



## Administrative~ Attachment - Service ListSERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL ORIGINAL & ONE COPY Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000 1 Romney Cycle Center, Respondent Attn: President 51 Industrial Park Romney, WV 26757 Brian W. Stolarz, Respondent's Counsel Leclair Ryan 2318 Mill Road, Suite 1100 Alexandria, VA 22314 TEL: 703-684-8007 FAX: 703-684-8075 ONE COPY

Rashawn Rich George, Complainant's Counsel Federal Aviation Administration Office ofthe Regional Counsel, AS0-7, Southern Region 1701 Columbia Avenue College Park, GA 30337 TEL: 404-305-5200 FAX: 404-305-5223 Hon. J.E. Sullivan,Administrative Law Judge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-6941 FAX: 202-366-7536 DocketNo. FAA-2015-0203 (Civil Penalty Action)

1 Service was byU.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

### -2-
Exhibit
32.1
  
  CERTIFICATION
BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
  PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
  AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
  SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  
  In
connection with the Annual Report of Numerex Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K
for the period ending December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Stratton J.
Nicolaides, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge, 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.
  This
certificate is being furnished solely pursuant to 8 U.S.C. Section 1350 and
is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document,
and may not be disclosed, distributed or used by any person or for any reason
other than as specifically required by law.
  
  March  29,
2010
  By:/s/
Stratton J. Nicolaides
  Stratton
J. Nicolaides,
  Chairman
and Chief Executive Officer
## NUMBER 13
- 1 6 - 00 14 2 - CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI
- EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________ CARL H. SCALISE , A ppellant ,

v. REBECCA SCALISE , A ppellee

.

____________________________________________________________

On a ppeal from the County Court at Law No. 5

of Hidalgo County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________



## MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Garza

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam Appellant, Carl H. Scalise , perfected an appeal from an order granting application for appointment of receiver entered by the County Court at Law No. 5 of Hidalgo County, Texas, in cause n umber F

- 2595

- 15

- 5

. This cause is before the Court on appellant’s unopposed motion to dismiss the appeal on grounds appellant no longer wishes to pursue this appeal

. Appellant request s that this Court dismiss the appeal.2

The Court, having considered the d ocuments on file and appellant ’ s unopposed motion to dismiss the appeal, is of the opinion that the motion should be granted. See
T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 42.1(a). Appellant ’ s motion to dismiss is granted, and the appeal is hereby DISMISSED. Costs will be taxed against appellant. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 42.1(d) ("Absent agreement of the parties, the court will tax costs against the appellant."). Having dismissed the appeal at ap pellant ’ s request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained, and our mandate will issue forthwith.

PER CURIAM
D elivered and filed this the 21st day of April , 20 1 6

.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7066
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ZAFAR AZIZ, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CR92-341-S) Submitted: September 30, 1998 Decided: October 21, 1998 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Zafar Aziz, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Charles Kay, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Zafar Aziz appeals from the district court’s orders denyinghis motions for a reduction in his sentence and for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Aziz , No. CR-92- 341-S (D. Md. June 10, 1998; June 23, 1998). 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM BWAY
CORPORATION AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-28-1997             SEP-28-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-31-1997             SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-29-1997             JUN-29-1997
<CASH>                                           1,491                   1,491
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   48,661                  48,661
<ALLOWANCES>                                       685                     685
<INVENTORY>                                     47,130                  47,130
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               101,329                 101,329
<PP&E>                                         136,459                 136,459
<DEPRECIATION>                                  23,576                  23,576
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 317,386                 317,386
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           85,282                  85,282
<BONDS>                                        124,716                 124,716
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                            66                      66
<OTHER-SE>                                      82,051                  82,051
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   317,386                 317,386
<SALES>                                        109,676                 301,020
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               109,676                 301,020
<CGS>                                           93,412                 254,101
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  102,221                 285,675
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,514                   1,713
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    10                     295
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,245                   7,800
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,455                  15,345
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,056                   6,291
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,399                   9,054
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,399                   9,054
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.66                    1.37
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.66                    1.37
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1

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 this Quarterly Report of UnionBanCal Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Masaaki Tanaka, President and Chief Executive 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 my knowledge:



Dated:
November 6, 2008

By:

/s/ MASAAKI TANAKA Masaaki Tanaka
Chief Executive Officer


---



QuickLinks
#### UNITED STATES of America v. William G. HAWKINS.

No. 9622.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Sept. 3, 1940.

Wm, Fleet Palmer, U. S. Atty., of Los Angeles, Cal., and Daniel Dillon, Atty., Department of Justice, of Oklahoma City, Okl., for appellant.

Ira A. Gwin, of Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.

Before WILBUR and MATHEWS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of the stipulation of counsel for respective parties, and good cause therefor appearing, ordered appeal herein dismissed, that a judgment of dismissal be filed and entered accordingly, and mandate issued forthwith.
#### MOATES v. STATE.

No. 21835.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 14, 1942.

M. E. Lawrence, of Eastland, for appellant.

Spurgeon E. Bell, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

The appellant was convicted of burglary. Upon trial, he was found guilty by a jury and his punishment was fixed at two years in the state penitentiary.

The record is before us without statement of facts or bills of exception. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.