alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Hills vs. Seeley.

Appeal. *Practice on. Where no HU of exceptions showing evidence, order refusing to confirm report of referee presumed correct.*

An order of tlie circuit court refuses to confirm a referee’s report (showing the evidence taken by him, and his findings of fact thereon, etc.}, and gives plaintiff leave to' amend his complaint and bring in new parties. On appeal from this order, there being *no Hit of exceptions : Held,*that the referee’s report is not before the court, and in its absence the order appealed from must be presumed correct.

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of *Fond du Lac*County.

*Knowles & Babcock,*for the appellant,

argued the case at length upon its merits.

*F. S. Bragg,*for respondent.

[No brief on file.]

Cole, J.

Upon looking into the record, we do not find any bill of exceptions. The cause seems to have been tried by a referee, who reported his findings of fact and conclusions of law, together with the evidence, to the circuit court. Exceptions were filed by the defendant to these findings. The plaintiff made a motion to confirm the report of the referee, which motion was heard, together with the exceptions to the same. The court refused to confirm the report, and ordered that the motion be denied, and that the plaintiff have leave, on payment of costs, to bring in new parties and amend his complaint as he might be advised. From this order an appeal has been taken, and the cause has been argued in this court upon the assumption that the evidence taken before the referee, and his findings thereon, were before us for review. But this is a mistake. In *Gilbank v. Stephenson,*30 Wis., 155, it was held that when a cause was tried by a referee, in order to enable this court to review questions of fact and conclusions of law, the circuit court must pass upon such questions, and a bill of exceptions must, be settled as in a cause tried originally in the circuit *247court. See also *Jenkins v. Esterly,*22 Wis., 128. Now, as there has been no bill of exceptions settled in this case, it is very obvious that the testimony and findings of the referee are not before us for examination. And we must presume that the circuit court, upon the evidence before it, correctly decided that it was necessary for the plaintiff to bring in other parties before there could be a complete determination of the action. In the absence of the testimony, we certainly cannot assume that the order of the circuit court was erroneous, or that it was not fully warranted by the facts before that court. All the evidence contained in the report of the referee, with the findings, was before the circuit court, on the ’motion to confirm, as it is not before this, for want of the necessary bill of exceptions.

The order of the circuit court must consequently be affirmed.

*By the Court.*— Order affirmed.
rcemploymentagmtamended.htm


 


EXHIBIT 10.61


 


 


 


 


 


June 21, 2011


 







Dr. Ron Cohen


246 Harriman Road


Irvington, NY 10533


 



	
  

	
Re:

	
Amendment to August 11, 2002, Employment Agreement












Dear Ron:


This letter serves as an amendment to your letter agreement, dated August 11, 2002, and amended September 26, 2005, May 10, 2007, and December 28, 2007 with Acorda Therapeutics, Inc. (the “Agreement”), in accordance with paragraph 9(b) of the Agreement.  The purpose of this amendment is to modify the amount of certain of your severance benefits in the event your employment is terminated by the Company without “Cause” or by you with “Good Reason”, as such terms are defined in the Agreement.  Specifically, the Agreement is amended as follows, effective as of the date executed by you as indicated below:


 



	
  

	
A.

	
Termination by the Company Without Cause, or Voluntary Termination by You With Good Reason – Severance Period.  The first sentence in Paragraph 6(c)(i) is amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows:







 


The Company shall pay you a single lump sum payment equal to the base salary you would have received during the twenty-four-month period immediately following the date of your termination (the “Severance Period”) had your employment not terminated.


 



	
  

	
B.

	
Termination by the Company Without Cause, or Voluntary Termination by You With Good Reason -- Bonus.  The first sentence in Paragraph 6(c)(ii) is amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows:







 


The Company shall also pay you a bonus equal to the last annual bonus you received (the “Prior Bonus”) multiplied by a fraction, the numerator of which shall be the number of days in the calendar year elapsed as of the termination date and the denominator of which shall be 365, provided that if such termination occurs after a Change in Control, the amount of the bonus paid to you under this Paragraph 6(c)(ii) shall be two times the larger of (A) the Prior Bonus and (b) the target annual bonus for the year in which the termination occurs.


 






  





  











  








Except as provided in this letter, the Agreement remains in full force and effect.  If this amendment is acceptable, please sign and date the copy of this letter provided herewith and return it to me at your earliest convenience.


 







 


Sincerely,


 


Acorda Therapeutics, Inc.


 







 


By: /s/David Lawrence   


                            David Lawrence


                            Chief Financial Officer


 







 


Agreed to and Accepted:


 


By:/s/Ron Cohen   


 Dr. Ron Cohen


 


Date: 6/21/11
# C_2014299EN.01000202.xml

| 5.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 299/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 299/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7338 — OJI/INCJ/Rank Group Pulp, Paper & Packaging Business)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2014/C 299/04

On 28 August 2014, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32014M7338. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32014M7338. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
In the matter of: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATIONADMINISTRATION

BRlANWALLAESA ) ) ) 

### ) ) ) 

### ) ) FDMS No. FAA-2010-0628 Case No. 201OWPI90018 Hon. Ronnie A. Yoder

Motion to Deem Each Allegation Admitted Pursuant to section 13.209 ofthe Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA's)**~** Rules ofPractice in Civil Penalty Proceeding, 14 C.F.R. § 13.209, the Administrator

### oP the FAA files this Motion to Deemthe EachAllegation Admitted, and in support thereof states as follows: I. The Administrator filed the Complaint inthis case onJuly 28, 2010, and pursuant to 14 C.F.R. §209(b), Mr. Wallaesa was required to file an
answer within 30 days. 2. As ofthe date ofthis motion, no answer has beenfiled in the above case. 3. According to 14 C.F.R. § 13.209(f), a party's "failureto file an answer without good cause shall be deemed an admission ofthe truth ofeach allegation contained in the complaint." WHEREFORE, the Administrator respectfully requests that the AdministrativeLawJudge enter an order deeming each allegation admitted and assess a civil penalty against Mr. Wallaesa in the amount of$5,500.

Date: September 10,2010 Respectfully submitted, PeterJ. Lynch Assistant ChiefCounsel Enforcement Division, AGC-300

# ~ James Conneely Attorney Enforcement Division, AGC-300 Federal Aviation Administration Office ofthe ChiefCounsel 800 Independence Ave., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20591 Telephone: (202) 267-9958 Facsimile: (202) 267-5106CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

### I hereby certify that onthis date, I have sent by U.S. mail, postage prepaid, certified return-receipt requested, a copy ofthe foregoing Motion to Deem Each Allegation Admitted in the matter ofBrian Wallaesa, FDMS No. FAA-2010-0628, to: Brian Wallaesa 11272 Wortham Crest Circle Manassas, VA 20109
In addition, I hereby certify that on this date, I have sent by U.S. mail, postage prepaid, certified return-receipt requested, the original and one copy of the foregoing document to: Hon. Ronnie A. Yoder ChiefAdministrative Law Judge Office ofHearings, M-20, Room E12-320 1200 NewJersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC, 20590

Date: PteIIlber 10,2010
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<RESTATED>
       
<S>                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                     6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                 JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          $143,173
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             2,004
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                   3,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                       0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    2,263,980
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         1,779,511
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           1,757,112
<LOANS>                                        5,416,079
<ALLOWANCE>                                       75,605
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 9,788,751
<DEPOSITS>                                     6,145,940
<SHORT-TERM>                                     965,212
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              241,607
<LONG-TERM>                                    1,770,784
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                         252,731
<OTHER-SE>                                       412,477
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 9,788,751
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  114,286
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                 68,094
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     158
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 182,538
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                46,803
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                81,814
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            100,724
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      2,700
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 2,486
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                   44,602
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   71,903
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                        71,903
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                      43,583
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       0.32
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       0.31
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                      4.45
<LOANS-NON>                                       46,995
<LOANS-PAST>                                       8,238
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                  17,786
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                        0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                  73,280
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      3,363
<RECOVERIES>                                       1,188
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                 75,605
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                              75,605
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                    0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                                0
        

</TABLE>
STEAM ELECTRIC

CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE

EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819

DCN: ________________________________________

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT 

CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION 

(CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.

SE04360A200
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports.

Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum

opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain

computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of

Appeals and does not include the filing date. 

1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 SHIRLEY M. CLARK,

3 Trustee of the Ronald B. Clark

4 and Shirley M. Clark Living Trust

5 Dated December 4, 1991,

6 Plaintiff-Appellee,

7 v. NO. 35,656

8 CORGEOS, LLC, a New Mexico

9 Limited Liability Company, and

10 ROBERT G. SAHD,

11 Defendants-Appellants.

12 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY

13 Alan M. Malott, District Judge 

14 Hunt & Davis PC

15 Julie J. Vargas

16 Albuquerque, NM

17 for Appellee

18 Leverick & Musselman, LLC

19 Richard M. Leverick

20 Albuquerque, NM 

21 for Appellants
2

1 MEMORANDUM OPINION

2 WECHSLER, Judge.

3 {1} Summary affirmance was proposed for the reasons stated in the notice of

4 proposed summary disposition. No memorandum opposing summary affirmance has

5 been filed and the time for doing so has expired.

6 {2} Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated in our calendar notice.

7 {3} IT IS SO ORDERED.

8 __________________________________

9 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge

10 WE CONCUR:

11 _________________________________

12 M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge

13 _________________________________

14 STEPHEN G. FRENCH, Judge
---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---
---

Exhibit 12.2

CERTIFICATION

I, Terry Luck, certify that:

1.
     I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Chai-Na-Ta Corp.(the Company);2.
     Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual report;3.
     Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;4.
     The Company's other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Company and have:


a.
     Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the Company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;b.
     Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with general accepted accounting principles;c.
     Evaluated the effectiveness of the Company's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusion about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andd.
     Disclosed in this report any change in the Companys internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Companys internal control over financial reporting; and


5.
     The Company's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Company's auditors and the audit committee of Company's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):a.
     All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Company's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb.
     Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Company's internal control over financial reporting.




/s/ TERRY LUCKTerry Luck, Chief Financial Officer





---
Docket Number: FAA - 2011 - 1251
REF ID:A67159 

SECURITY VIOLATIONS 

troa •The Memoirs of Cordell Hull,• Vol. II, The MacMillian Company, 

I. Y., 1948, Chapter 71, "We Talk with Japan, " pp. 998. 

Actually, we already knew the con ten ts of the message. It contained 

a statement froa Matsuoka to me that the Geraan and Italian leaders were 

contident of victor;r, that Aaerican participation in the European War 

would merel7 prolong it a.Di bring about. the destruction of civilization, and 

that Japan could not injure the posi ti.on of her allies. 

We knew this because of the tact that our lav;y and J.rrq cipher experts, 

with remarkable ingenuit7, and broken the Japanese code am were deciphering Government nessages froa Toky'O to Wash~ton and other capitals, translating them am se:rxiing them to the State Departaent for our intol'llation. 

These intercepts, bearing our code naae "Magic," played little part 

in our early" negotiations, but were of great i.Jlport.ance during the final 

piases. They enabled us to know many of the instruct.ions the Japanese 

Foreign Minister was sending to HOJIUl"a and to other Japanese representatives; the7 gave us a check on what Nomura was reporting to Tok.Yo concerning the conversations he vas holding with me; and the7 shoved that the 

Japanese Govern:aent was going ahead with its plans even while talking of 

peace vi th us. I looked upon th ea as I 11> uld upon a witness who vas 

testify-i.ng against his Olin side of a case. 

I naturally bad to be careful never to g1 ve Noaura the slightest 

impression of this special knowledge. I had to take care to keep our 

conversation linai ted to the knowledge I 111.ght have gained trom hi.a or 

from nonaal diplomatic sources. So as to safeguard the security of these 

messages, I named one of my secretaries to hamle them, keep track of 

th•, aIXi make sure the7 were either returned to the Navy or destroyed. 

@'pproved for Release by NSA on 05-09-2014 pursuant to E.O. 1352e
SANDRA WALKER,

Petitioner,

v.

DAVITA, INC., and SEDGWICK 

CMS,

Respondents.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D16-3228

_____________________________/

Opinion filed November 9, 2016.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari -- Original Jurisdiction.

Nicolette E. Tsambis, Lakeland, for Petitioner.

Donna L. Kerfoot, of Vernis & Bowling of The Gulf Coast, P.A., Tampa, for 

Respondents.

PER CURIAM.

 DENIED.

ROWE, MAKAR, and KELSEY, JJ., CONCUR.
# CA2014152EN.01001501.xml

| 20.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CA 152/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CA 152/15

---

REVIEW OF COMPETITION C A OFFICIAL JOURNALS

(2014/C 152 A/02)

Please find below the list of C A Official Journals published during the present year.

Unless otherwise indicated, the Official Journals are published in all language versions.

| 5 | |
| --- | --- |
| 6 | |
| 11 | |
| 19 | |
| 21 | |
| 26 | |
| 27 | |
| 30 | (PL) |
| 35 | |
| 41 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 42 | |
| 43 | |
| 46 | |
| 47 | |
| 48 | |
| 55 | |
| 56 | |
| 60 | |
| 62 | |
| 65 | |
| 73 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 74 | |
| 81 | |
| 88 | |
| 92 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 97 | |
| 98 | |
| 99 | |
| 108 | |
| 109 | |
| 116 | |
| 119 | |
| 133 | |
| 134 | |
| 136 | |
| 137 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 140 | |
| 145 | |
| 152 | |

5

6

11

19

21

26

27

30

(PL)

35

41

(DE/EN/FR)

42

43

46

47

48

55

56

60

62

65

73

(DE/EN/FR)

74

81

88

92

(DE/EN/FR)

97

98

99

108

109

116

119

133

134

136

137

(DE/EN/FR)

140

145

152

---
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Jakeous Jamal Johnson, Appellant

No. 06-24-00047-CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appeal from the 71st District Court of 

Harrison County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 21-

0315X). Panel consists of Chief Justice 

Stevens and Justices van Cleef and Rambin. 

Memorandum Opinion delivered by Justice 

van Cleef. 

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find there was partial error in the 

judgment of the court below. Therefore, we modify the trial court’s judgment to show that 

Johnson pled not guilty to the charge in the indictment. As modified, we affirm the judgment of 

the trial court.

We note that the appellant, Jakeous Jamal Johnson, has adequately indicated his inability 

to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED SEPTEMBER 20, 2024

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

SCOTT E. STEVENS

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, November 02, 2016.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, November 02, 2016

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A17A0267. QUENTON GIBSON v. THE STATE.

The appellant in this case failed to comply with the notice of docketing mailed by this 

Court and with Court of Appeals Rules 22 (a) and 23 (a), regarding the filing of an enumeration 

of errors and brief within twenty days after the appeal was docketed. See also Court of Appeals 

Rule 13.

On October 06, 2016, this Court ordered the appellant to file an enumeration of errors 

and a brief no later than October 17, 2016. As of the date of this order, the appellant's 

enumeration of errors and brief still have not been filed. Accordingly, this appeal is deemed 

abandoned and is hereby ordered DISMISSED. Court of Appeals Rules 7, 23 (a).