alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

BOLIVAR STEWART TAYLOR, )

)

Plaintiff, )

vs. ) No. 3:05-CV-2055-K

) ECF

JOSEPH HERRERA, et al. )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER ACCEPTING THE ORAL FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

After reviewing all relevant matters of record in this case, including the Findings,

Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge, which were

dictated into the record on January 25, 2008, the Transcript of the Motion for Summary

Judgment Hearing, and Defendant’s objections thereto filed on February 8, 2008, in

accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the undersigned District Judge is of the opinion

that the Findings and Conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct and they are

accepted as the Findings and Conclusions of the Court. 

Accordingly, pursuant Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, filed on October

24, 2007, is DENIED. Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Affidavit of Joe B. Wiser; Motion to Strike
2

Affidavit of Joe S. Herrera; and Motion to Strike Affidavit of Jason A. Chapman, all filed on

November 26, 2007, are hereby DENIED as moot.

This case will be set for jury trial by separate order.

SO ORDERED.

SIGNED this 24 day of February, 2008. th

 

ED KINKEADE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S AUDITED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30,
2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         448,102
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,400,533
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,253,895
<PP&E>                                         200,714
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              17,712,229
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        7,465,079
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  1,477,200
<COMMON>                                        12,336
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,829,228
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                17,712,229
<SALES>                                      3,205,892
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,205,892
<CGS>                                        2,122,396
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                7,433,891
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           (1,195,503)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (5,423,502)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (5,423,502)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            (4,553,982)
<CHANGES>                                    (126,784)
<NET-INCOME>                              (10,104,268)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.11)


</TABLE>
Case 3:05-cv-02515-M Document 22 Filed 07/11/06 Page 1 of 3 PageID 105
 

 Case 3:05-cv-02515-M Document 22 Filed 07/11/06 Page 2 of 3 PageID 106
 

 Case 3:05-cv-02515-M Document 22 Filed 07/11/06 Page 3 of 3 PageID 107
Second Amendment to Lease



 Exhibit 10.48 
  
 SECOND AMENDMENT TO LEASE 
  
 SECOND AMENDMENT dated as of May 15, 2003 to the Lease Agreement (the “Lease”) dated May 20, 1993 by and between FULTON STREET
ASSOCIATES, as Landlord (“Lessor”) and UNIGENE LABORATORIES, INC., as Tenant (“Lessee”) 
  
 W I T N E S S E T H : 
  
 WHEREAS, Lessee has notified Lessor that it intends to exercise it option to extend the term of the Lease for an additional ten (10) year period
beginning February 1, 2004 and ending January 31, 2014 (the “Extended Term”). 
  
 WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 55 of the Lease the parties have agreed as to the Basic Rent during the Extended Term. 
  
 NOW THEREFORE, it is agreed as follows: 
  
 1. EXTENSION OF LEASE. The Lease is hereby extended for a period of ten (10) years commencing February 1, 2004 and ending January 31, 2014.

  
 2. FIXED BASE RENT. The Basic Rent for the
Extended Term as set forth in Section 2 of the Lease shall be TWO HUNDRED ONE THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED THIRTY-SEVEN AND  50/100 ($201,437.50) DOLLARS per annum payable in equal monthly installment of SIXTEEN THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED EIGHTY-SIX AND  46/100 ($16,786.46) DOLLARS for Basic Rent; except that a proportionately lesser sum may be
paid for the first and last months of the term of this Lease if the term commences on a day other than the first day of the month in accordance with the provisions of this Amendment herein set forth. 
  
 3. INTERPRETATION OF LEASE. Except as specifically set forth
herein, the Lease shall remain in full force and effect. In the event of a conflict between the terms of this Amendment and the Lease, the terms of this Amendment shall control. 
  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands and seals this 15th day of May, 2003. 
  

	 WITNESS:
	 	 	 	 FULTON STREET ASSOCIATES

			
	  

	 	 By:
	 	 /s/ JAMES P.
ZORLAS        


	 	 	 	 	James P. Zorlas, Partner
			
	 ATTEST:
	 	 	 	 UNIGENE LABORATORIES, INC.

				
	  

	 	 	 	By:	 	 /s/ WARREN P.
LEVY        


	 	 	 	 	Warren P. Levy, President
Kevin H. GRAHAM, in His Individual Capacity; Gary L. Wood, Ph.D., in His Individual Capacity; James A. Christensen, M.D., in His Individual Capacity; and Marilyn D. Christensen, in Her Individual Capacity, Appellants, v. LAKE ELLEN LANDINGS TOWNHOMES CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., a Florida Non-Profit Corporation, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-2607

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 8, 2019.

Kevin H. Graham, pro se, and for Appellants Gary L. Wood, PH.D., in his individual capacity; James A. Christensen, M.D., in his individual capacity; and Marilyn D. Christensen, in her individual capacity.

Yvette R. Lavelle and Joseph G. Riopelle of Boyd, Richards, Parker & Colonnelli, P.L., Tampa; and Charles Evans Glausier of Glausier Knight, PLLC, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

KHOUZAM, SALARIO, and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002

Solely for the purpose of complying with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, we,
the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Manitex International, Inc. (the Company), hereby certify that, to the best of our knowledge, the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
June 30, 2008 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                      |  |                                                                            
|--------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|By:                   |  | /s/ David J. Langevin                                                      
|Name:                 |  | David J. Langevin                                                          
|Title:                |  | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer                                       
|                      |  | (Principal Executive Officer of Manitex International, Inc.)               
|                     
|Dated: August 7, 2008
|                      | 
|By:                   |  | /s/ David H. Gransee                                                       
|Name:                 |  | David H. Gransee                                                           
|Title:                |  | Vice President and Chief Financial Officer                                 
|                      |  | (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer of Manitex International, Inc.)
|                     
|Dated: August 7, 2008



39
Javier MALDONADO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-1895

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 29, 2019.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

TELISA DE'ANN BLACKMAN §

§

Petitioner, §

§

VS. §

§ NO. 3-05-CV-1874-P 

DOUGLAS DRETKE, Director §

Texas Department of Criminal Justice, §

Correctional Institutions Division §

§

Respondent. §

ORDER

After conducting a review of the pleadings, files and records in this case, and the Findings

and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1), I am of the opinion that the Findings and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are

correct and they are hereby accepted as the Findings of the Court. Petitioner's motion for relief

from judgment is granted. This case is to be reopened and re-referred to the magistrate judge for

further proceedings.

SO ORDERED this 21 day of December 2005. st

_________________________________

JORGE A. SOLIS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

 Case 3:05-cv-01874-P Document 12 Filed 12/21/05 Page 1 of 1 PageID 122
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 this
Quarterly Report of Premier Products Group, Inc. (the “Company”), on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended June 30,
2019, as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Arnold F. Sock, Interim Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|(1) | Such
    Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended June 30, 2019, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended June 30, 2019, fairly presents, in all
    material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|Date:
    November 23, 2020 | By: | /s/
    Arnold F. Sock                 
|--------------------------- | --- | ---------------------------------------
|                            |     | Arnold
    F. Sock                     
|                            |     | Interim Chief
        Financial Officer
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 10.1

                             FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE
                         YORK INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION
                      EXECUTIVE DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN
                (AS AMENDED AND RESTATED EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2001)

         Pursuant to the powers of amendment reserved to the Compensation
Committee under Article X of the York International Corporation Executive
Deferred Compensation Plan (the "Plan"), the Plan is hereby amended, effective
as of [JULY 1, 2001] as follows:

         1.       SECTION 3.1 IS HEREBY AMENDED AND RESTATED IN ITS ENTIRETY TO
READ AS FOLLOWS:

                           3.1      ELIGIBILITY. Each highly compensated
                  employee or member of management of the Employer who is
                  selected by the Compensation Committee, shall be eligible to
                  become a Participant as of the date designated by the
                  Compensation Committee. An eligible employee shall remain
                  eligible until such time as the Compensation Committee
                  affirmatively revokes such employee's eligibility. Each
                  Outside Director shall be eligible to participate in the Plan.

         2.       SECTION 6.1 (a) IS HEREBY AMENDED AND RESTATED IN ITS ENTIRETY
TO READ AS FOLLOWS:

                           6.1      TIME AND MANNER OF DISTRIBUTIONS.

                                    (a)      Upon the earliest of a
                  Participant's termination of employment, ceasing to be an
                  eligible Outside Director or death, the Administrative
                  Committee shall commence payment of the Participant's Account
                  to the Participant or the Participant's Beneficiary, as
                  applicable, as soon as practicable thereafter; provided,
                  however, that the Administrative Committee may determine, in
                  its sole and absolute discretion, to delay payment
                  commencement to any Participant, if necessary, to avoid
                  application of the deduction limitation of section 162(m) of
                  the Code to the Employer.

         The York International Corporation Executive Deferred Compensation
Plan, as amended by this First Amendment effective as of [JULY 1, 2001], is
hereby ratified and confirmed in all respects.

<PAGE>

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Compensation Committee has caused this First
Amendment to be executed as of the _____ day of May, 2003.

                                             The Compensation Committee of the
                                             Board of Directors of
                                             York International Corporation

                                             By: _______________________________

Attest:

___________________________
### The HONORABLE RICHARD G. KOPF, United States District Judge 1 

### for the District of Nebraska. ___________ No. 95-4148

___________ United States of America, * * * Plaintiff - Appellee, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the v. * District of Nebraska. * William Schwalb, * [PUBLISHED] * Defendant - Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: April 8, 1996 Filed: May 21, 1996

___________ Before MAGILL, Circuit Judge, HENLEY, Senior Circuit Judge, and LOKEN , Circuit Judge.

___________ PER CURIAM.

Texas brokers William Schwalb and Robert Dunlap induced a Nebrask a inv estor to invest $50,000 toward the purchase of woolen mill equipmen t that a Mexican buyer had supposedly committed to repurchase, and another $28,000 to purchase and resell commercial sewingmachines. When the deals fell through, Schwalb and Dunlap were indicted for wire fraud an d interstate transportation of stolen property. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 and 2314. A jury convicted Schwalb on six counts. The district court 1 sent enced him to fifteen months in prison plus a $78,000 restitutio n obligation. Schwalb appeals his conviction and sentence. We affirm.
Schwalb first argues that the prosecution was vindictive i n responding to his pretrial motion to dismiss the initial indictment

### -2-

by expanding the challenged counts in a superseding indictment. W e disagree. There is n o presumption of vindictiveness when the prosecution responds t o a defendant's pretrial motion in this manner. See Unite d States v. Goodwin , 457 U.S. 368, 381 (1982). It is not "vindictiveness" for th e prosecution to eliminate possible pleading deficiencies in th e initial indictment.
Schwalbnext argues that there was insufficient evidence of inten t to def raud. However, the Nebraska investor's testimony provided ampl e eviden ce for the jury to find that Schwalb made intentiona l misrep resentations that induced the Nebraskan to invest. Schwalb als o argues that the prosecutor made a prejudicial closing argument b y present ing a hypothetical not based on the evidence and by accuratel y noting evidence that Dunlap cashed a check obtained with the defraude d investor's money in L as Vegas. We conclude this was neither improper nor prejudicial argument. Finally, Schwalb argues that his sen tence is tainted by an erroneous enhancement for more than minimal planning. See U.S.S.G. § 2F1.1(b)(2)(A)
. We conclude the distr ict court's finding of more than minimal planning is not clearly erroneous given the evidence of elaborate steps taken to induc e the victim to invest in the woolen mill equipment deal, and of efforts to conceal that offense from the victim which helped induce him to invest in the later sewing machine deal. See § 1B1.1 comment. (n.1(f)) (more than minimal planning exists if "steps were taken to conceal the offense, other than conduct" amounting to obstruction of justice). The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
A true copy.

Attest:
CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Firmwide:81345047.1 015602. 4656 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

DALLAS DIVISION 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:05-CV-1805-L 

(ECF) 

KEELY DAVIS, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

WAL-MART STORES, INC., 

Defendant. 

__________________________________/ 

_______________________________________________________________ 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

_______________________________________________________________

Defendant, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and 

Local Rule 56.3, respectfully requests entry of final summary judgment in its favor on all of the 

claims asserted by Plaintiff. The grounds for Defendant’s motion are set forth in the Defendant’s 

Brief in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment, filed simultaneously herewith. In 

accordance with Local Rule 56.3(b), the matters required by Local Rule 56.3(a) are contained in 

Defendant’s brief. 

Respectfully submitted, 

LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 

Counsel for Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 

One Biscayne Tower, Suite 1500 

2 South Biscayne Boulevard 

Miami, Florida 33131-1804 

Telephone: (305) 400-7500 

Facsimile: (305) 603-2552 

By: /s/ Gaye L. Huxoll 

 Scott A. Forman 

 Florida Bar No. 065950 

 sforman@littler.com 

 Gaye L. Huxoll 

Florida Bar No. 149497 

ghuxoll@littler.com 

Case 3:05-cv-01805-L Document 24 Filed 08/04/06 Page 1 of 2 PageID 262
2 

Firmwide:81345047.1 015602.4656 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that, on this 4th day of August, 2006, I electronically filed the foregoing with the 

Clerk of the Court by using the CM/ECF system which will send a notice of electronic filing to 

the CM/ECF participants identified below. I further certify that I mailed the foregoing document 

and the notice of electronic filing by first-class mail to any non-CM/ECF participants identified 

at the time of electronic filing. 

Steven E. Clark, Esq. 

The Clark Firm 

Counsel for Plaintiff

1401 Elm Street 

Suite 3404 

Dallas, Texas 75202 

 /s/ Gaye L. Huxoll 

Gaye L. Huxoll 

Case 3:05-cv-01805-L Document 24 Filed 08/04/06 Page 2 of 2 PageID 263
ORDER - SOLO PAGE

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, §

§

Plaintiff, §

§

v. § Civil Action No. 3:05-CV-1638-N

§ 

JAMES HARGRAVE, §

§

Defendant. §

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

After reviewing all relevant matters of record in this case, including the Findings,

Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge and any objections

thereto, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the undersigned District Judge is of the

opinion that the Findings and Conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct and they are

accepted as the Findings and Conclusions of the Court. Accordingly, Defendant’s Objection of

James Hargrave to Writ of Garnishment, filed November 4, 2005, is hereby OVERRULED.

SIGNED June 27, 2008

 

DAVID C. GODBEY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
<PAGE>

                                                                     Exhibit 3.2

                          CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT OF

                     RESTATED CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION

                          OF V.I. TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

     It is hereby certified that:

1.   The name of the corporation is V.I. Technologies, Inc. (the "Corporation").
     The original Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation as filed with
     the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware on January 1, 1993, and the
     Certificate of Incorporation was restated on June 11, 1998.  The name under
     which the Corporation was originally incorporated was Melville Biologics,
     Inc.

2.   The Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation is hereby amended by
     striking out Article Fourth Paragraph One there of and by substituting in
     lieu of said Article Fourth Paragraph One the following:

     "FOURTH:  The total number of shares of all classes of stock which the
     Corporation shall have authority to issue in thirty six million
     (36,000,000) shares, consisting of:  (i) thirty-five million (35,000,000)
     shares of Common Stock, $.01 par value per share ("Common Stock"), and (ii)
     one million (1,000,000) shares of Preferred Stock, $.01 par value per share
     ("Preferred Stock")."

3.   The amendment of the Certificate of Incorporation herein certified has been
     duly adopted in accordance with the provisions of Section 242 of the
     General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware.

Signed and attested to on November 12, 1999.


                              By: /s/ John R. Barr
                                      ------------
                                  John R. Barr, President
Jimmie L. BOWEN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D18-2458

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed February 27, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Tauric GRIGGS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D18-3185

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[May 2, 2019]

**FLORIDA DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION.**

Affirmed.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

TIMOTHY PAUL MARTIN, ID # 566302, )

Petitioner, )

vs. ) No. 3:05-CV-2443-D

)

NATHANIEL QUARTERMAN, Director, )

Texas Department of Criminal )

Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, )

Respondent. )

ORDER

After reviewing all relevant matters of record in this case, including the findings, conclusions,

and recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge and the objections thereto, in

accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the undersigned district judge is of the opinion that the

findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge are correct and they are accepted as the findings

and conclusions of the court, except that, after considering petitioner’s explanation, the court

declines to issue a warning to him at this time.

SO ORDERED.

September 13, 2006.

_________________________________

SIDNEY A. FITZWATER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

 Case 3:05-cv-02443-D Document 12 Filed 09/13/06 Page 1 of 1 PageID 139
Christopher LA FONTAINE v. Yvonne TRIPLETT

2160755

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

August 10, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.