alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
6H 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 24-0277

DUTCH ENNIS,

 Plaintiff and Appellant,

 v.

MOJAVA COFFEE, INC., and DOES I-V,

 Defendants and Appellees.

ORDER OF MEDIATOR APPOINTMENT

This appeal being subject to M.R.App.P. 7, and the parties having failed to jointly 

and timely select a mediator under M.R.App.P., 7(4),(c),

IT IS ORDERED THAT Arthur V. Wittich, whose name appears next on the list 

of attorneys desiring appointment as mediators for Money Judgments appeals which is 

maintained pursuant to M.R.App.P., 7(4)(e), is hereby appointed to conduct the 

mediation process required by M.R.App.P., 7(5), and 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the time periods set forth in M.R.App.P., 

7(5)(d) shall run from the date of this order of appointment.

A true copy of this order is being mailed to counsel of record for the parties, or to 

the parties individually if not represented by counsel, on the date hereof.

DATED this May 30, 2024.

Bowen Greenwood, Clerk of the Supreme Court

c: Nicholas Rowley, Daniel B. Bidegaray, Scott M. Stearns, Zachary Aaron Franz, 

Arthur V. Wittich

05/30/2024

Case Number: DA 24-0277
Exhibit 10.2


 


2017 DECLARATION OF AMENDMENT TO





AKOUSTIS, INC.


 2014 STOCK PLAN


 


THIS 2017 DECLARATION OF AMENDMENT,
is made effective as of the 11th day of September, 2017, by Akoustis Technologies, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”),
to the Akoustis, Inc. 2014 Stock Plan (the “Plan”). Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meaning
ascribed to them in the Plan.


 


R E C I T A L S:


 


WHEREAS, the Board of Directors
of the Company has deemed it advisable to amend Section 12 of the Plan to enhance the liquidity of Shares issued under the Plan;
and


 


WHEREAS, the Company desires
to evidence such amendment by this 2017 Declaration of Amendment.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS DECLARED
that Section 12 of the Plan shall be and hereby is amended by deleting Section 12 in its entirety and inserting the following in
lieu thereof:


 


		12)	Lapse of Restrictions. Any restriction on the Shares underlying an Award contained in an
Option Agreement, Restricted Stock Purchase Agreement, or other applicable written agreement requiring that all transferees of
the Shares underlying an Award receive and hold the Shares subject to the terms of the applicable agreement (including, insofar
as applicable, terms relating to transfer restrictions, rights of first refusal, and the obligation to enter into certain requested
lockup agreements), shall lapse upon the vesting and, to the extent applicable, exercise of the applicable Award.



 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this 2017
Declaration of Amendment is executed on behalf of Akoustis Technologies, Inc., effective as of the day and year first above written.


 





	 	AKOUSTIS
    TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/
                                         Jeffrey B. Shealy



	 
	 	 	Jeffrey
    B. Shealy
	 	 	Chief
    Executive Officer







 


ATTEST: 


/s/ John T. Kurtzweil________





John T. Kurtzweil 


Chief Financial Officer
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE
F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Winnie Stacey Al W azzan v. Isa Ali Al W azzan and International Agencies Co., Ltd.

Appellate case number: 01

- 22

- 00316

- CV

Trial court case number: 2017

- 24671

Trial court: 246 th District Court of Harris County

Appellant, Winnie Stacey Al W azzan, has appealed the trial court’s March 12, 2022 “Order Granting Bill of Review.” Appellant filed her appellant’s brief on September 28, 2022, making appellees ’ brief(s) due no later than October 28, 2022. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.6(b).

On October 28, 2022, appellees, International Agencies Co., Ltd. and Isa Ali Al

W azzan, separately, filed motions to extend the deadline to file their respective appellees’

briefs . The Court granted the motions, extending appellees’ deadline to file their appellees’ briefs to December 27, 2022. On December 27, 2022, International Agencies Co., Ltd. filed a second motion to extend the deadline to file its brief. On December 28, 2 022, Isa

Ali Al W azzan similarly filed a second motion to extend the deadline for filing an appellee’s brief. Again, the Court granted the motions, extending appellees’ deadline for filing their respective appellees’ briefs as January 27, 2023. The Court also notified appellees that no further extensions would be granted.

Despite the Court’s notice that no further extensions would be granted, on January 27, 2023, appellees each filed a third motion to extend the deadline for filing an appellee’s

brief. A ppellees requested an additional fourteen days to file their respective briefs, extending the deadline for filing an appellee’s brief to February 10, 2023.

Appellees’ third motions to extend the deadline for filing their respective briefs are

deni ed

. A ppellees ’ brief s are due to be filed no later than ten days of the date of this

order

. In the event either appellee fails to file an appellee’s brief by the extended deadline, the Court may set the appeal for submission and consider ation without an ap pellee ’ s brief.It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: ___

/s/ Amparo Guerra

_______  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: ___ February 14, 2023

_____
##### 



Exhibit 10.20
 EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
(J. Cabell Acree III)
 EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT Agreement Company Key
Employee
 W I T N E S S E T H:
 WHEREAS,
 WHEREAS,
 NOW, THEREFORE,
 ARTICLE I
DEFINITIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS
 1.1 Definitions .
 Base Salary Section
2.3(a)
 Board
 Cause
 Section 3.8
    1




---



##### 



Change in Control
 Section
1.1(d)(ii) provided further however Section
1.1(d)(i) Section 1.1(d)(i)
 Section 1.1(d)(ii) Section
1.1(d)(i)
  2




---



##### 



Section 1.1(d) provided Section 1.1(d) Majority Shareholder (y) (y)
 Code
 Disability Company Physician Key Employees Physician
 Good Reason
    Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Rules
 Protection Period
 3




---



##### 



Severance Pay
   Severance Period
   Without Cause
 1.2 Interpretations .
 ARTICLE II
EMPLOYMENT AND DUTIES
 2.1 Term . Initial Term Renewal Term
 2.2 Position, Duties and Services .
 4




---



##### 



2.3 Compensation .
 Base Salary
 Bonuses and Perquisites
 Incentive, Savings, Profit Sharing, and Retirement Plans
 Welfare Benefit Plans
 2.4 Severance Benefit . ARTICLE III Section 2.1 ARTICLE III
 ARTICLE III
EARLY TERMINATION
 3.1 Death . Section 2.3
 3.2 Disability . Section 2.1 Section 2.3
 3.3 Termination for Cause or Voluntary Resignation by Key Employee .
 5




---



##### 



Section 2.3
 3.4 Termination Without Cause or for Good Reason Unrelated to a Change in Control . Section 2.1 Section 2.3
 3.5 Termination Without Cause or for Good Reason Related to a Change in Control . Section 2.3
 3.6 Termination of Companys Obligations . ARTICLE III Section
3.8
 3.7 Release . Section 3.7 Section 3.4 Section 3.5 i.e Section
2.3
 3.8 Non-Competition, Confidentiality .
 Agreement not to Compete Section 3.8(b) Section
3.8(b) Section
3.8
 6




---



##### 



Confidential Information
 Reasonableness of Restrictions Section 3.8 Section 3.8 Section 3.8 Section 3.8
 7




---



##### 



Enforcement Successor Employer Section 3.8 Section 3.8 Section 3.8
 3.9 Parachute Payments . ARTICLE III Section 3.9
 3.10 Payments Subject to Section 409A of the Code . ARTICLE III ARTICLE III
 8




---



##### 



ARTICLE IV
MISCELLANEOUS
 4.1 Governing Law .
 4.2 Amendment and Waiver .
 4.3 Severability .
 4.4 Entire Agreement . Section 2.3(c) Section 2.3(d)
 4.5 Withholding of Taxes and Other Employee Deductions .
 4.6 Headings .
 4.7 Actions by the Board .
 4.8 Construction .
  9




---



##### 



IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
 COMPANY:ORION MARINE GROUP, INC.By:
    
    /s/ J. Michael PearsonName:
    
    J. Michael PearsonTitle:
    
    President and Chief Executive OfficerKEY EMPLOYEE:/s/
J. Cabell Acree III
 Signature Page to
Employment Agreement
**Exhibit 32.1**

**Certification of Chief Executive Officer**

**Pursuant to**

**Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Main Street Capital Corporation (the “Registrant”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2020 (the “Report”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Dwayne L. Hyzak, the Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)          The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2)          The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.

​

| ​ | ​             | ​          |
|---------|---------------------|------------------|
| ​ | /s/ DWAYNE L. HYZAK |
| ​ | Name:               | Dwayne L. Hyzak  |
| ​ | Date:               | November 6, 2020 |

​

----
(logo) Rialto

CAPTAL

 

 

**2018 Annual Statement of Servicer Compliance (Item1123)**

 

 

Pooling and ServicingAgreement (the "Pooling and Servicing Agreement") dated as of August1, 2012 by and among Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage Securities, Inc., as Depositor,Wells Fargo Bank, National Association as Master Servicer, Rialto CapitalAdvisors, LLC, as Special Servicer, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association asCertificate Administrator, as Tax Administrator and as Custodian, Deutsche BankTrust Company Americas, as Trustee, and Pentalpha Surveillance LLC as TrustAdvisor, relating to the WFRBS Commercial Mortgage Trust 2012-C8, CommercialMortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2012-C8 **(WFRBS 2012-C8**)

 

The undersigned, a dulyauthorized officer of Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC, as special servicer (the" SpecialServicer") hereincertifies to the following:

 

1.       All servicing activities and performanceof such servicing activities under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement areperformed on behalf of the Special Servicer.

 

2.       A review of the servicing activities andperformance by the Special Servicer for the period of January 1, 2018 toDecember 31, 2018 (the "Reporting Period") in accordance with thePooling and Servicing Agreement has been conducted under my supervision.

 

3.       To the best of my knowledge, based on suchreview, the Special Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under theterms of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, in all material respects for theReporting Period and if there has been a failure to fulfill any suchobligations in any material respect, each failure and the nature and statusthereof has been specifically identified herein.

 

 

Certified by: /s/ Adam Singer

Adam Singer, Managing Director

 

Date: March 1, 2019
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 MIP Solutions, Inc, (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jeffrey Lamberson, President, Principal Accounting Officer and Director of the Company, certify, pursuant to 81 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



1.

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



2.

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





By:       /s/ Jeffrey Lamberson

Principal Financial Officer





August 22, 2011



A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the registrant and will be retained by the registrant to be furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §1350



(SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)



I, Lynne Phillis, Controller (principal financial
officer) of Iveda Solutions, Inc. (the “Registrant”), certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based upon a review of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for the period
ended September 30, 2011 of the Registrant (the “Report”):



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and result of operations of the Registrant.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|Date: March 6, 2012                          | 
|-------------------------------------------- | 
|                                             | 
|/s/ Lynne Phillis                            | 
|Lynne Phillis                                | 
|Controller                                   | 
|(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) |
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-1112

FELECIA MARCHMON, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

v. 

SECURITAS SECURITY SERVICES USA, INC., 

 Defendant - Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, 

Senior District Judge. (3:12-cv-00708-GCM) 

Submitted: April 24, 2014 Decided: April 29, 2014

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Felecia Marchmon, Appellant Pro Se. Kimberly Joyce Lehman,

Gregory Phillip McGuire, OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART, 

PC, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2

PER CURIAM: 

Felecia Marchmon appeals the district court’s order 

granting summary judgment to Securitas Security Services in her 

civil action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as 

amended. 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (2012). We have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, 

we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. 

Marchmon v. Securitas Sec. Servs., No. 3:12-cv-00708-GCM

(W.D.N.C. Jan. 10, 2014). We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 

in the materials before this court and argument would not aid 

the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 192 (Thursday, October 3, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 80604]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-22732]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation Nos. 701-TA-699-702 and 731-TA-1659-1660 (Final)]


Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From Ecuador, India, Indonesia, and 
Vietnam; Revised Schedule for the Subject Investigations

AGENCY: United States International Trade Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

DATES: September 27, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Calvin Chang (202-205-3062), Office of 
Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, 
Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information 
on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-
1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special 
assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the 
Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning 
the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server 
(https://www.usitc.gov). The public record for these investigations may 
be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 8, 2024, the Commission 
established a revised schedule for the conduct of the final phase of 
the subject investigations (89 FR 66138, August 14, 2024) to conform 
with the U.S. Department of Commerce (``Commerce'') issuing a 
memorandum tolling certain statutory and regulatory deadlines by a 
total of seven days. The Commission is further revising its schedule 
regarding the deadlines for filing prehearing briefs and for requests 
to appear at the hearing. All other aspects of the schedule remain 
unchanged.
    The Commission's revised dates in the schedule are as follows. The 
deadline for filing prehearing briefs is 5:15 p.m. on October 15, 2024; 
if a brief contains business proprietary information, a nonbusiness 
proprietary version is due the following business day. Requests to 
appear at the hearing should be filed in writing with the Secretary to 
the Commission on or before October 16, 2024. Parties must submit any 
request to present a portion of their hearing testimony in camera no 
later than seven business days prior to the date of the hearing.
    For further information concerning this proceeding, see the 
Commission's notice cited above and the Commission's Rules of Practice 
and Procedure, part 201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 201), and 
part 207, subparts A and C (19 CFR part 207).
    Authority: These investigations are being conducted under authority 
of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published 
pursuant to Sec.  207.21 of the Commission's rules.

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: September 27, 2024.
Lisa Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2024-22732 Filed 10-2-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
### Page 1 of 3 Disposition Comments

Docket No: 

### FAA

- 20 15

- 3741 ☐ These comments are in

Directorate ID: 

### 20 14

- SW

- 040

- AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.:

Next Step: ☒ FRAN ☐ SNPRM



### ☒ N o C omments/Only Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are

required.

No 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued?

If yes, list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the

previ ously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point

for guidance. 

### Latest Revision

.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend

. Reference FAA

- IR

- M

- 8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one o

f the following : 

### Choose one

. If other, explain :

Commenter(s): 

### Click here to enter text.

What change to the AD action is requested? 

### Click here to enter text.

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

### Click here to enter text.

Do we agree? 

### Yes/No

If YES, we agree because 

### Insert justification Make the following changes to the AD: 

### List any

changes to the AD

If PARTIALLY AGREE

, we agree with 

### Insert text because 

### Insert justification We disagree with



### Insert text because 

### Insert justification Make the following changes to the AD: 

### List any

changes to the AD

If NO

, we don’t agree because 

### Insert our rationale

ISSUE 2 : Select one of the following : 

### Choose one

.

If other, explain : 

### Click here to enter text.

Commenter(s): 

### Click here to enter text.

What change to the AD action is requested? 

### Click here to enter text.

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

### Click here to enter text.

Do we agree? 

### Yes/No

### Page 2 of 3

If YES, we agree because 

### Insert justification Make the following changes to the AD: 

### List any

changes to the AD

If PARTIALLY AGREE

, we agree with 

### Insert text because 

### Insert justification We disagree with



### Insert text because 

### Insert justification Make the following changes to the AD: 

### List any

changes to the AD

If NO

, we don’t agree because 

### Insert our rationale

For additional issues, double

- click here

### Page 3 of 3 S ignature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.:

ASE Printed Name : Date

Branch Manager Date
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

ERIC FLORES,

Appellant,

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 19

- 00191

- CR

Appeal from the

120th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 20110D01621 )

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes the appeal should be

dismissed for want of jurisdiction, in accordance with the opinion of this Court. We therefore

dismiss the appeal. This decision shall be certified below for o bservance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 7TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019.

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ.
#### MILLER v. STATE.

No. 18427.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 21, 1936.

Homer L. Moss, of Shamrock, for appellant.

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

MORROW, Presiding Judge.

Felony theft is the offense; penalty assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for two years.

The automobile belonging to Robert Thomas was left parked at night upon one of the streets of Shamrock, Tex. The car was locked. Upon his return, Thomas found the door handles broken off and a hole cut. in the top of the car by and through which it had been opened. Certain personal effects had been taken from the car, including ah automatic shotgun and a bag containing certain ladies’ wearing apparel and cosmetics. The next day the appellant was found in possession of certain of the stolen property. He had also disposed of certain items taken at the time of the theft.

fhe unexplained recent possession of stolen property is a sufficient circumstance to authorize the jury’s conclusion of guilt upon the part of the taker; and the possession of part of the stolen property, when it is shown that the whole of the property was taken at one or the same time, is a sufficient circumstance to justify the conclusion that all of the property was taken at the same time and by the same party. See Norton v. State (Tex.Cr.App.) 88 S.W.(2d) 1045.

Appellant complains of the overruling of his motion for a continuance on account of the absence of a witness by whom he could establish the defense of alibi. The qualification of the bill of exception shows that no written motion for a continuance was ever presented to the trial court. Article 545, C.C.P., requires that all motions for a continuance be sworn to by the applicant. See Walker v. State, 119 Tex.Cr.R. 330, 45 S.W.(2d) 987. The bill, therefore, fails to reflect error.

Appellant sought to have the case continued because of the absence of counsel. The qualification of the bill shows that appellant had not employed the attorney *472whom he claims he desired to have represent him; and upon this fact being ascertained, the trial court appointed counsel for appellant who did 'represent him upon the trial.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
**Exhibit 23.1****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**To the Partners of