alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-4372
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JERMAINE TERRELL STRANGE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at New Bern. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:95-cr-00083-BO-11) Submitted: November 30, 2007 Decided: December 21, 2007 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, G. Alan DuBois, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. George E. B. Holding, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Banumathi Rangarajan, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM:Jermaine Terrell Strange appeals from his forty-fivemonth sentence for violating his supervised release. On appeal, he argues that his sentence is unreasonable. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. We will affirm a sentence imposed after revocation of supervised release if it is within the prescribed statutory range and is not plainly unreasonable. United States v. Crudup , 461 F.3d 433, 437 (4th Cir. 2006), cert. denied , 127 S. Ct. 1813 (2007). Here, it is uncontested that Strange sold crack cocaine on three occasions within one year of his release from confinement and that the district court sentenced Strange within his properly-calculated advisory sentencing range of 37-46 month s. (J.A. 23). See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 7B1.4(a) (2006). Under these circumstances, we do not find that the district court’s sentence was plainly unreasonable. Crudup , 461 F.3d at 437; seeRita v. United States , 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2469 (2007) (noting that “[w]here a [sentencing] matter is . . . conceptually simple” and the record makes clear that the sentencing judge considered the evidence and arguments “we do not believe the law requires the judge to write more extensively.”). Accordingly, we affirm Strange’s sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are- 3 - adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### Rosenberg v. O’Malley

*Barry H. Frank,*for plaintiff.

*Joseph E. Gallagher,*for defendants.

June 12, 1979

WALSH, *J.,*

This matter is before the court by way of defendants’ preliminary objections to plaintiffs amended complaint. The complaint is in equity wherein plaintiff alleges that he is a shareholder of defendant professional corporation. He further alleges that after notification of a forthcoming shareholders’ meeting, he executed a power of attorney and proxy in favor of his counsel to represent plaintiffs interest at said meeting. Defendants refused to allow plaintiffs attorney-in-fact to attend the meeting. Plaintiff seeks among other things, to have this meeting declared null and void by reason of the asserted refusal to permit attendance at this meeting of plaintiffs representative.

Defendants’ demurrer to this complaint is based on the provisions of the Professional Corporation Law of July 9, 1970, P.L. 461, sec. 10, 15 P.S. *798§2910, which states, “No shareholder of a professional corporation shall enter into a voting trust, proxy, or any other arrangement vesting another person (other than another licensed person who is a shareholder of the same corporation) with the authority to exercise the voting power of any or all of his shares, and any such purported voting trust, proxy or other arrangement shall be void.”

We do not agree with defendants. The section of the Professional Corporation Law referred to by defendants only pertains specifically to voting shares to proxy. It makes no mention of attendance at said meetings. It is noted also the Business Corporation Law in regard to proxy voting, 15 P.S. §1504(a),has no such restriction on authorizing another to vote by way of proxy.

Defendants also argue that section 13 of the Professional Corporation Law, 15 P.S. §2913, which refers to confidential relationship between attorney and client may be violated by allowing one not a shareholder to attend such a meeting. We do not agree. The authorized representative of plaintiff is a member of the legal profession in the State of Pennsylvania. As such the proxy holder would be subject to the same code of professional responsibility and as dictated by Canon 4 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, would also have to preserve the confidences and secrets of his client, one of the legal shareholders of the corporation (Sheldon Rosenberg).

ORDER

Now, June 12, 1979, the preliminary objections of defendants are overruled.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, 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.

 November 30, 2016

s1121

Order 

Clerk

November 30, 2016

151912

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 151912

COA: 320098

Berrien CC: 2013-016179-FH

EDWARD RAY WATKINS,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 14, 2015 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

RODNEY SANCHEZ LOPEZ,

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

§ 

No. 08-15-00010-CR

Appeal from the

143rd District Court

of Reeves County, Texas

(TC# 13-08-07799-CRR)

O R D E R

The Court on its own motion ORDERS the Court Reporter for the 143rd District Court of 

Reeves County to prepare and e-file a supplemental record containing State’s Exhibit 11-A and 

State’s Exhibit 11-B (“DVD OF DASH CAM VIDEO”). The supplemental record is due with 

this Court on or before December 12, 2016. 

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2016.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez and Hughes, JJ.
KALU Exhibit 10.5 - 3.31.2013 - 10Q






Exhibit 10.5


Description of 2013 Short-Term Incentive Umbrella Plan 
Under the Amended and Restated 2006 Equity and Performance Incentive Plan


2013 Performance Goal and Bonus Pool            
The performance goal for the STI Performance Period shall be $5.0 million in Net cash provided by operating activities, as reported in the Company's Statements of Consolidated Cash Flows (“Cash Flow”).  The bonus pool, representing the amount available for payment of bonuses, shall equal 15% of Cash Flow.        
The purpose of establishing the maximum pool under the Company's 2013 Short-Term Incentive Umbrella Plan (the "2013 STI Umbrella Plan") is to improve tax efficiency with respect to the Company's incentive programs and achieve an Internal Revenue Code Section 162(m) "performance based" exemption for annual bonus amounts earned by the designated participants identified below, during the STI Performance Period. The 2013 STI Umbrella Plan is authorized by and subject to the terms of the Kaiser Aluminum Corporation Amended and Restated 2006 Equity and Performance Incentive Plan. 


The specified maximum pool allocations, as established and defined below are subject to the Company's Compensation Committee's authority to reduce, but not increase, the amount of the actual bonus earned and payable to each designated participant under the 2013 STI Umbrella Plan. It is anticipated that the payouts to the covered employees under the 2013 STI Umbrella Plan will be reduced by the Company's Compensation Committee through the exercise of negative discretion, which is permitted under Section 162(m). The Company's Compensation Committee's exercise of negative discretion with respect to one participant's award under the bonus pool shall not result in an increase in the amount payable to another participant under the bonus pool.    


Allocation of Bonus Pool to Executives
	
			
	Executive Name
	Executive Title
	Percent of Pool Allocated 
to Executive1

	Jack A. Hockema
	Chief Executive Officer
	38.927%

	John Barneson
	SVP - Corporate Development
	10.256%

	John M. Donnan
	EVP - Legal, Compliance and Human Resources
	17.105%

	[Other Designated Participant]
	[Designated Participant Title]
	[Percentage]

	[Other Designated Participant]
	[Designated Participant Title]
	[Percentage]






1 Subject to an aggregate maximum bonus opportunity per executive of $5.0 million per calendar year, pursuant to the Equity Incentive Plan.


Administrative Provisions


The 2013 STI Umbrella Plan only applies to the calculation and award of incentive awards, if any.  There will be no duplication of benefits created by the 2013 STI Umbrella Plan.
The 2013 STI Umbrella Plan will not increase any benefits that may be payable under any severance and/or change in control agreements
Exhibit 32.2(1)

STATEMENT OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER UNDER 18 U.S.C. § 1350

I, Shelly Schaffer, the chief financial officer of
support.com, Inc. (the Company), certify for the purposes of section 1350 of chapter 63 of title 18 of the United States Code that, to the best of my knowledge,



|(i) | the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2009 (the Report), fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(ii) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|---- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                      |  |  |  |                              
|--------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------------
|Date: August 10, 2009 |  |  |  | /s/    SHELLY SCHAFFER       
|                      |  |  |  | Shelly Schaffer              
|                      |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer and  
|                      |  |  |  | Executive Vice President     
|                      |  |  |  | of Finance and Administration

A signed original of this written statement required by 18 U.S.C. § 1350 has been provided to
support.com, Inc. and will be retained by support.com, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





|(1) | The material contained in this Exhibit 32.2 is not deemed filed with the SEC and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the
Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, whether made before or after the date hereof and irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing, except to the extent that the registrant specifically
incorporates it by reference.
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, December 06, 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, December 06, 2016

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A17D0176. JAYLEN ALMEDA v. THE STATE.

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of 

this order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record 

transmitted to the Court of Appeals.

LC NUMBERS:

1691609
[Civ. No. 9803.

Second Appellate District, Division Two.

July 11, 1934.]

#### MABEL P. ANDERSON, Petitioner, v. BENJAMIN F. BLEDSOE, Respondent.

L. J. Styskal for Petitioner. .

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher for Respondent.

STEPHENS, P. J.

Honorable Benjamin F. Bledsoe, for many years a distinguished judge of the superior court, *651and later judge of tbe United States District Court, obliged tbe litigants and tbe presiding judge of tbe Superior Court of Los Angeles County by accepting appointment as a *pro tempore*judge to try tbe case of *Mabel P. Anderson et al., Plaintiffs,*v. *City Railway Company et al., Defendants,*pending in tbe said superior court. Tbe case was tried without a jury, judgment was duly rendered and entered and thereafter a motion for a new trial was made and granted. Tbe order granting tbe new trial was appealed and this appeal was subsequently dismissed.  A motion was made in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County to vacate tbe order granting tbe new trial and this motion, it is conceded, will be beard by Judge Bledsoe under his continuing authority as judge *pro tempore*unless we issue tbe writ of prohibition preventing it. Judge Bledsoe responds by filing a demurrer on tbe ground that no cause has been stated, and this pleading was treated at tbe argument as a return. Tbe point raised is conceded by all concerned as wholly legal in nature and in no sense as an aspersion upon tbe ability or integrity of the distinguished respondent.

We think tbe demurrer must be sustained. The authority of the appointment continues until the final disposition of tbe ease. (Const, of Cal., art. YI, sec. 5, as amended November 6, 1928.) The fact that tbe order granting tbe new trial has become final so far as a direct appeal therefrom is concerned is wholly immaterial.

Tbe alternative writ is discharged and the peremptory writ is denied.

Craig, J., and Desmond, J., concurred.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          12,111
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 2,170
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    121,228
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          28,784
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            28,472
<LOANS>                                        162,290
<ALLOWANCE>                                      3,246
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 337,777
<DEPOSITS>                                     290,555
<SHORT-TERM>                                     2,580
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              3,271
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,476
<OTHER-SE>                                      36,895
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 337,777
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 12,792
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                6,357
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   286
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                19,435
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               8,171
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,222
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           11,213
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      900
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   4
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  7,852
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,049
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       3,559
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,559
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.99
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.99
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.93
<LOANS-NON>                                        775
<LOANS-PAST>                                     1,435
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   362
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 3,407
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    1,588
<RECOVERIES>                                       527
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                3,246
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             2,567
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            697


</TABLE>
EXHIBITA-LRIPTermSheet2013-2015forCLC_finalFor10-QExhibit (1)


Exhibit A      


Motorola Solutions, Inc.
2013-2015 LRIP Terms
	
									
	Design Feature
	2013-2015 LRIP

	Performance Cycle
	Three years from 2013-2015

	Eligible Population
	CVP and above

	Performance Criteria
	Relative Total Shareholder Return (TSR)
TSR Defined as:
Ending stock price
   (Daily average during the final three months of the Performance Cycle)
+   Value of reinvested dividends
=   Total ending value
–   Beginning stock price
   (Daily average during the three months preceding the Performance Cycle)
=   Total value created
÷   Beginning share price
   (Daily average during the three months preceding the Performance Cycle)
= Total shareholder return

	Negative TSR Component
	If the resulting TSR performance for Motorola Solutions is negative, the Committee will have negative discretion to reduce the final payout up to a 25% reduction of the calculated payout.

	Comparator Group
	Danaher Corp.
	JVC Kenwood Corp.

	Eaton Corp.
	NCR Corp.

	Emerson Electric Co.
	Parker-Hannifin Corp.

	Harris Corp.
	Raytheon Co.

	Honeywell International, Inc.
	Rockwell Collins, Inc.

	Ingersoll-Rand PLC
	TE Connectivity Ltd.

	Intermec, Inc.
	Tyco International Ltd.

	Payout Scale
	 

	 
	TSR Rank
	Payout Factor
	 

	1
	200%

	2
	185%

	3
	170%

	4
	155%

	5
	140%

	6
	125%

	7
	110%

	8
	100%

	9
	75%

	10
	50%

	11
	25%

	12
	0%

	13
	0%

	14
	0%

	15
	0%

	





	

A comparator company must be publicly traded on or after July 1, 2014, to be included in the TSR rank among other companies at the end of the performance cycle.





5
        


Exhibit A      


	
									
	

In the event a comparator company stops being publicly traded before July 1, 2014, the company will be excluded from the TSR rank at the end of the performance cycle and the payout scale will be adjusted as follows:



	Payout Scale With 13 Comparator Companies:
	Payout Scale With 12 Comparator Companies:

	 
	 

	 
	TSR Rank
	Payout Factor
	 
	 
	TSR Rank
	Payout Factor
	 

	1
	200%
	1
	200%

	2
	180%
	2
	180%

	3
	160%
	3
	160%

	4
	140%
	4
	140%

	5
	120%
	5
	120%

	6
	110%
	6
	110%

	7
	100%
	7
	100%

	8
	75%
	8
	65%

	9
	50%
	9
	25%

	10
	25%
	10
	0%

	11
	0%
	11
	0%

	12
	0%
	12
	0%

	13
	0%
	13
	0%

	14
	0%
	 

	 

	

Payout Scale With 11 Comparator Companies:
	

Payout Scale With 10 Comparator Companies:

	 
	 

	 
	TSR Rank
	Payout Factor
	 
	 
	TSR Rank
	Payout Factor
	 

	1
	200%
	1
	200%

	2
	180%
	2
	180%

	3
	160%
	3
	160%

	4
	140%
	4
	140%

	5
	120%
	5
	120%

	6
	100%
	6
	100%

	7
	65%
	7
	65%

	8
	25%
	8
	25%

	9
	0%
	9
	0%

	10
	0%
	10
	0%

	11
	0%
	11
	0%

	12
	0%
	 

	 





6
Honorable Weaver Mcore,~ Chairman 

Committee on State Affairs 

The Senate 

Austin, Texas 

Dear Sir: Opinion No. O-3311 

Re: Constituti&alitg of S.B. 355 amending Art. 1269h, V.A.C.S., 'so 

as to authorize creation of airport districts. 

Pursuant to your request we have carefully considered Senate Bill No. 355, copy of which bill is attached 

hereto. 

This bill amends Sections 1 and 2 of House Bill No. 

160, Acts of the First Called Session of the 41st Legislature, 

Chapter 83, Page 209, as amended by House Bill No. 216 of the 

Regular Session of the 47th Legislature. House Bill No. 160, 

Acts of the First Called Session of the 41st Legislature has 

been compiled in Vernon's Annotated Civil Statutes as Article 

1269h. House Bill No. 216 of the current session amends this 

only in that it removes the limitation of the size of airports. 

The bill under consideration, I.e., Senate Bill No. 355, further amends Article 1269h in that it seeks to authorize the 

establishment and maintenance of airports by "any designated 

district within the county' and to au~thorize such district to 

levy taxes and issue bonds therefor. As polnted out in our 

Opinion No. O-3310 addressed to you, no constitutional authority exists for the levy of taxes by a district created for 

airport purposes. For the reasons stated and under the authorities cited in that opinion, we beg to advise you that Senate 

Bill No. 355 is unconstitutional insofar as it seeks to confer the taxing power upon a district created for the purpose 

of constructing and maintaining airports. 
Honorable Weaver Moore, Chairnmn, page 2 o-3311 

Yours very truly 

ATTORNEY GEHERAL OF TEXAS 

By s/Walter R. Koch 

Walter R. Koch 

Assistant 

WRK:RS:ac 

APPRO'VED APRIL 26, 1941 

s/Grover Sellers 

FIRST ASSISTANT 

ATTORNEY GENERAL 

Approved Opinion Committee By s/'BwB Chairman
# C_2016140EN.01000301.xml

| 21.4.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 140/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.4.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 140/3

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

20 April 2016

(2016/C 140/02)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1379 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 124,20 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4430 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,79100 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,1643 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0939 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,2336 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,021 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 309,05 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2875 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4827 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 3,2011 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4556 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4421 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,8272 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6231 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5246 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 285,04 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 16,1623 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,3578 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5023 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 973,62 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,3950 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 52,626 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 74,6465 |
| THB | Thai baht | 39,656 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 4,0362 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 19,7060 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 75,3270 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1379

JPY

Japanese yen

124,20

DKK

Danish krone

7,4430

GBP

Pound sterling

0,79100

SEK

Swedish krona

9,1643

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0939

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,2336

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,021

HUF

Hungarian forint

309,05

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2875

RON

Romanian leu

4,4827

TRY

Turkish lira

3,2011

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4556

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4421

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,8272

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6231

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5246

KRW

South Korean won

1 285,04

ZAR

South African rand

16,1623

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,3578

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5023

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 973,62

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,3950

PHP

Philippine peso

52,626

RUB

Russian rouble

74,6465

THB

Thai baht

39,656

BRL

Brazilian real

4,0362

MXN

Mexican peso

19,7060

INR

Indian rupee

75,3270

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---