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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

ABRO INDUSTRIES, INC., )

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff, CAUSE NO.

vs.

1 NEW TRADE, INC., IGOR

ZORIN, BORIS BABENCHIK,

VADIM FISHKIN and QUEST

SPECIALTY COATINGS, LLC

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Defendants.

PLAINTIFF’S CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

Pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 7.1, this Corporate Disclosure Statement is filed on behalf of

the Plaintiff, ABRO Industries, Inc.

1. Is said party a subsidiary or other affiliate of another corporation?

Yes x No

If the answer is Yes, list below the identity of the parent or other affiliate corporation and the

relationship between it and the named party:

2. Is there a publicly held company that owns 10% or more of said party’s stock?

Yes x No

If the answer is Yes, identify each publicly held company that owns 10% or more of the party’s

stock.

USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-01984-TLS-MGG document 5 filed 10/23/14 page 1 of 2
On behalf of the Plaintiff, the undersigned counsel certifies that the foregoing corporate

disclosure will be supplemented within a reasonable time in the event of any change in the

information reflected above.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Georgina D. Jenkins

D. Randall Brown (15127-49)

randy.brown@btlaw.com

600 One Summit Square

Fort Wayne, IN 46802

Telephone: (260) 423-9440

Facsimile: (260) 424-8316

Alice J. Springer (25105-64)

alice.springer@btlaw.com

Georgina D. Jenkins (31357 71)

georgina.jenkins@btlaw.com

700 1st Source Bank Center

100 North Michigan Street

South Bend, IN 46601-1632

Telephone: (574) 233-1171

Facsimile: (574) 237-1125

ATTORNEYS FOR THE PLAINTIFF

USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-01984-TLS-MGG document 5 filed 10/23/14 page 2 of 2
#### YOUNG v. UNITED STATES MORTGAGE & TRUST CO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

June 6, 1913.)

Action by George W. Young against the United States Mortgage & Trust Company.

No opinion. Motion granted. Order filed. See, also, 156 App. Div. 515, 141 N. Y. Supp. 364.
Amendment No. 1 Employment and Non-Competition Agreement



 Exhibit 10.13 
  
 AMENDMENT NO. 1 
  
 EMPLOYMENT AND NON-COMPETITION AGREEMENT 
  
 This addendum shall amend certain portions of the Employment and Non-Competition Agreement (“the Agreement”), dated November 19, 1999, entered into among AMN
Holdings, Inc. a Delaware Corporation, AMN Acquisition Corporation and STEVEN C. FRANCIS (the “Employee). 
  

	1.	AMN Acquisition Corp. merged into AMN Holdings, Inc. on March 29, 2001; 

  

	2.	AMN Holdings, Inc. changed its name to AMN Healthcare Services, Inc. (hereinafter “the Company”) on October 18, 2001; 

  

	3.	On May 8, 2003, EMPLOYEE began serving in the exclusive role of Chief Executive Officer, ceasing to serve as the Company’s President; 

  

	4.	Paragraph 2.01 is deleted, and replaced with the following: 

  
 Term. The term of this Agreement (the “Term”) shall commence on the effective date and shall continue until December 31, 2004, unless
terminated earlier as provided in Article V. The Term shall be automatically extended for additional periods of one year unless either party gives at least 90 days’ prior written notice to the other of the intention to terminate the
Employee’s employment hereunder at the end of the Term. 
  

	5.	Paragraph 3.01(b) of the Agreement is amended by deleting the entire paragraph, and inserting in its place the following: 

  
 Bonus Amount. The Company’s Compensation Committee will
determine the criteria and target(s) for EMPLOYEE’S bonus, on an annual basis, in accordance with the Company’s Senior Management Incentive Bonus Plan (“Bonus Plan”). EMPLOYEE shall receive a graduated bonus depending upon
achievement of between 95% and 100% of the Bonus Plan target(s) for the given fiscal year, and that if the Company achieves 100% of the Bonus Plan target(s), EMPLOYEE’S bonus amount will be 50% of his Base Salary; provided, however, that except
as provided in Sections 5.02 and 5.03, the EMPLOYEE shall only be paid such annual bonus amount if he is employed by the Company on the last day of the particular fiscal year. 
  

	6.	The effective date of this addendum shall be September 25, 2003. 

  

									
	 AMN HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC.
	 	 	 	 
				
	By:	 	/s/    ROBERT B. HAAS	 	 	 	 Dated: December 12, 2003

	 	 	
	 	 	 	 	 
	 Name:
	 	 Robert B. Haas
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 Title:
	 	 Chairman of the Board
	 	 	 	 	 	 

  

					
	 EMPLOYEE
	 	 	 	 
			
	/s/    STEVEN C. FRANCIS	 	 	 	 Dated: December 15, 2003

	
	 	 	 	 
	 Steven C. Francis
#### Jack Kaufman et al., Respondents, v Morris N. Magin et al., Defendants, and Lawrence J. Pacernick, Appellant. —

Order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Molloy, J.), dated February 6, 1984, affirmed, with costs *(see, Patterson v Jewish Hosp. & Med. Center,*94 Misc 2d 680, *affd*65 AD2d *553; Feraco v Long Is. Jewish-Hillside Med. Center,*97 AD2d 498). Titone, J. P., Thompson, O’Connor and Rubin, JJ., concur.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Respondent

v. RODNEY L. GREEN, JR., Petitioner : : : : : : : : : : : No. 383 MAL 2014 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 7th day of October, 2014, the Petition for All owance of Appeal is DENIED
.
Daniel Eric COBBLE, petitioner, v. Stanley WILLIAMS, Warden, et al.

No. 12-8887.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 10, 2013.

Motion of petitioner for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied.
D ENIED and Opinion Filed August 28, 2020

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05 - 20 - 00662 - CV No. 05 - 20 - 00689 - CV IN RE RODNEY DEAN BE THANY , Relator Original Proceeding from the 363rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. W04 - 00122 - W( C ) & W04 - 00123 - W( C )

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Myers , Molberg , and Evans Opinion by Justice Molberg In these original proceedings, relator Rod ney Dean Bethany filed a July 7, 2020 notice of petition for writ of mandamus and a July 20, 2020 petition for writ of mandamus . In both filings, relator seek s the Court’s assistance to compel the trial court to complete tasks assigned to it by the court o f criminal appeals in a remand of an article 11.07 habeas writ proceeding. We deny relief
. The court of criminal appeals remanded to the trial court relator’s 11.07 habeas applications “to allow the trial judge to complete an evidentiary investigation and enter findings of fact and conclusions of law.” See Ex parte Bethany , No. WR

69,480

- 07, 2019 WL 2362007 , at *1 (Tex. Crim. App. June 5, 2019 ) (order)
. Relator– 2

–

complains that the trial court’s deliberations are taking too long despite receiving
numerous re minders from the court of criminal appeals. Our mandamus jurisdiction does not extend to order ing a trial court to rule on matters associated with a pending article 11.07 writ application. Padieu v. Court of Appeals of Tex., Fifth Dist. , 392 S.W.3d 115, 11 7

– 18 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013); see also In re Ward , No. 12

- 15

- 00142

- CR, 2015 WL 3505189, at *1 (Tex App.

— Tyler June 3, 2015, orig. proceeding) (mem. op. , not designated for publication); In re Hamilton , No. 03

- 13

- 00384

- CV, 2013 WL 3336839, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Austin June 26, 2013, orig. proceeding) (mem. op). Because we lack jurisdiction over the habeas proceeding for which relator seeks our assistance, we deny his notice of petition for writ of mandamus and his petition for writ of mandamus.

200662f.p05 2000689f.p05 /Ken Molberg// KEN MOLBERG JUSTICE
case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM   document 34   filed 06/19/14   page 1 of 6

case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM   document 34   filed 06/19/14   page 2 of 6

case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM   document 34   filed 06/19/14   page 3 of 6

case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM   document 34   filed 06/19/14   page 4 of 6

case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM   document 34   filed 06/19/14   page 5 of 6

case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM   document 34   filed 06/19/14   page 6 of 6
26808 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 96 / Thursday, May 18, 1995 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Indian Affairs

[K00360–95–35420]

Receipt of Petition for Federal

Acknowledgment of Existence as an

Indian Tribe

This is published in the exercise of

authority delegated by the Secretary of

the Interior to the Assistant Secretary—

Indian Affairs by 209 DM 8.

Pursuant to 25 CFR 83.9(a) (formerly

25 CFR 54.9(a)) notice is hereby given

that the Mattaponi Tribe (Mattaponi

Indian Reservation), Route 2, Box 310,

West Point, Virginia 23181, has filed a

petition for acknowledgment by the

Secretary of the Interior that the group

exists as an Indian tribe. The petition

was received by the Bureau of Indian

Affairs (BIA) on April 4, 1995, and was

signed by members of the group’s

governing body.

This is a notice of receipt of petition

and does not constitute notice that the

petition is under active consideration.

Notice of active consideration will be

sent by mail to the petitioner and other

interested parties at the appropriate

time.

Under Section 83.9(a) (formerly

54.8(d) of the Federal regulations),

interested parties may submit factual

and/or legal arguments in support of or

in opposition to the group’s petition.

Any information submitted will be

made available on the same basis as

other information in the BIA’s files.

Such submissions will be provided to

the petitioner upon receipt by the BIA.

The petitioner will be provided an

opportunity to respond to such

submissions prior to a final

determination regarding the petitioner’s

status.

The petition may be examined, by

appointment, in the Department of the

Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs,

Branch of Acknowledgment and

Research, Room 1362–MIB, 1849 C

Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20240,

Phone: (202) 208–3592.

Dated: May 3, 1995.

Ada E. Deer,

Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs.

[FR Doc. 95–12289 Filed 5–17–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–02–P
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. CASE NO. 3:14-cr-00055-JD

JAMES P. LEDONNE

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO CONTINUE HEARING

COMES NOW William J. Cohen, counsel for the Defendant, James P. LeDonne, and

respectfully moves to continue the hearing on counsel’s Motion to Withdraw now set for

September 17, 2014, at 3:30 p.m., for the reason that counsel for Defendant will still be in trial

in Goshen, Indiana, in a case entitled State of Indiana vs. Tyler Beathea, Cause No. 20D03-

1212-FB-122, which trial began on September 8, 2014.

WHEREFORE, counsel for Defendant requests a continuance of the hearing set for

September 17, 2014, that it be reset at the Court’s convenience, and for all further relief proper

in the premises.

/s/ William J. Cohen 

William J. Cohen, #3291-20

Attorney for Defendant

401 West Bristol Street

Elkhart, IN 46514

Telephone: (574) 293-4511

Fax: (574) 522-6281

E-Mail: wcohen@williamjcohen.com

case 3:14-cr-00055-JD-CAN document 84 filed 09/16/14 page 1 of 2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on the 16th day of September, 2014, I electronically filed the foregoing with

the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which sent notice of this filing to all counsel of

record.

/s/ William J. Cohen 

case 3:14-cr-00055-JD-CAN document 84 filed 09/16/14 page 2 of 2
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 12 (Thursday, January 19, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 3866]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-1222]



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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Report No. 2051]


Petition for Reconsideration and Clarification of Actions in 
Rulemaking Proceedings

    Petition for reconsideration have been filed in the Commission 
rulemaking proceedings listed in this Public Notice and published 
pursuant to 47 CFR 1.429(e). The full text of these documents are 
available for viewing and copying in Room 239, 1919 M Street, N.W., 
Washington, D.C. or may be purchased from the Commission's copy 
contractor ITS, Inc. (202) 857-3800. Opposition to these petitions must 
be filed February 3, 1995. See Sec. 1.4(b)(1) of the Commission's rules 
(47 CFR 1.4(b)(1)). Replies to an opposition must be filed within 10 
days after the time for filing oppositions has expired.

Subject: Subject: Revision of Radio Rules and Policies. (MM Docket No. 
91-140, RM-8414)
    Number of Petitions Filed: 1
Subject: Implementation of Sections of the The Cable Television 
Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992--Rate Regulation. (MM 
Docket No. 92-266 and MM Docket No. 93-215)
    Number of Petitions Filed: 9
Subject: Amendment of Sec. 73.202(b) Table of Allotments FM Broadcast 
Stations. (Colonial Heights, Tennessee) (MM Docket No. 93-28, RM-8172 
and 8299)
    Number of Petitions Filed: 1
Subject: Amendment of Sec. 73.202(b) Table of Allotments for FM 
Broadcast Stations. Athens, Ohio (MM Docket NO. 93-165, RM-8247) 
Hermantown, Minnesota (MM Docket No. 93-206, RM-8284) Balsam Lake, 
Wisconsin (MM Docket No. 93-213, RM-8351) Taylorville, Illinois (MM 
Docket No. 93-256, RM-8326)
    Number of Petitions Filed: 2
Subject: Amendment of Sec. 73.202(b) Table of Allotments for FM 
Broadcast Stations. (Isleboro and Winter Harbor, Maine) (MM Docket No. 
93-203, RMs-8245 and 8340)
    Number of Petitions Filed: 1
Subject: Implementations of sections 3(n) and 332 of the Communications 
Act--Regulatory Treatment of Mobile Services. (GN Docket No. 93-252)
    Number of Petitions Filed: 1.

Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-1222 Filed 1-18-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-M
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 10.45

                                 AMENDMENT NO. 1

                                     TO THE

                   AMETEK 401(k) PLAN FOR ACQUIRED BUSINESSES
               (AS AMENDED AND RESTATED EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2002)

         WHEREAS, the AMETEK 401(k) Plan for Acquired Businesses (the "Plan")
was adopted effective May 1, 1999;

         WHEREAS, the Plan was amended and restated effective January 1, 2002;

         WHEREAS, Section 10.1 of the Plan provides that AMETEK, Inc. ("AMETEK")
may amend the Plan at any time from time to time; and

         WHEREAS, AMETEK now desires to amend the Plan to (1) clarify the
authority of AMETEK to merge, consolidate or transfer assets held on behalf of
Participants and their Beneficiaries from or to another plan meeting the
requirements of Section 401(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended,
and (2) increase the limit on catch-up contributions from 50% of a participant's
compensation to 75% of a participant's compensation.

         NOW THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended as follows:

                  FIRST: Section 10.6 of the Plan is hereby amended to read in
its entirety as follows:

                  "10.6 Merger of Plan. Pursuant to action of the Board of
Directors, the Plan may be merged or consolidated with, or a portion of its
assets and liabilities may be transferred to, another plan meeting the
requirements of Section 401(a) of the Code or any successor provision of law, or
a portion of the assets and liabilities of another such plan may be transferred
to the Plan, provided such merger, consolidation or transfer is accompanied by a
transfer of such existing records and information as may be necessary to
properly allocate such assets among Participants and to provide any tax or other
necessary information to the persons administering the Plan or receiving the
assets, and further provided that each Participant or Beneficiary shall be
entitled to receive a benefit immediately after such merger, consolidation or
transfer if this Plan or such other plan were then terminated which is at least
equal to the benefit the Participant or Beneficiary would have been entitled to
receive immediately before such merger, consolidation or transfer if this Plan
or such other plan had been terminated."

                  SECOND: Section 4.1(c) of the Plan is hereby amended by
replacing the phrase "and not more than 50 percent (50%) of his Compensation"
with the phrase "and not more than 75 percent (75%) of his Compensation."

                  THIRD: The provisions of this Amendment No. 1 shall be
effective as of January 1, 2004.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, AMETEK has caused this Amendment to be executed, in
its corporate name, by its duly authorized officer on this 10th day of December,
2003.

                                           AMETEK, Inc.

                                           By: /s/ John J. Molinelli
                                              ----------------------

Attest: Kathryn E. Londra
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO. 1:14-CR-25

)

MICHAEL TRESSLER )

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

UPON A PLEA OF GUILTY

TO: THE HONORABLE THERESA L. SPRINGMANN, JUDGE, 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Upon Defendant’s request to enter a plea of guilty pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules

of Criminal Procedure, this matter came on for hearing before U.S. Magistrate Susan Collins, on

February 19, 2015, with the written consents of the Defendant, counsel for the Defendant, and

counsel for the United States of America.

The hearing on Defendant’s plea of guilty was in full compliance with Rule 11, Federal

Rules of Criminal Procedure, before the Magistrate Judge in open court and on the record.

In consideration of that hearing and the statements made by the Defendant under oath on

the record and in the presence of counsel, the remarks of the Assistant United States Attorney and

of counsel for Defendant,

I FIND as follows:

(1) that Defendant understands the nature of the charges against him to which the plea is

offered;

(2) that the Defendant understands his right to trial by jury, to persist in his plea of not

guilty, to the assistance of counsel at trial, to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses, and
his right against compelled self-incrimination;

(3) that the Defendant understands what the maximum possible sentence is, including the

effect of the supervised release term, and Defendant understands that the Sentencing Guidelines

apply and that the Court may depart from those guidelines under some circumstances;

(4) that the plea of guilty by the Defendant has been knowingly and voluntarily made and

is not the result of force or threats or of promises apart from the plea agreement between the

parties;

(5) that Defendant is competent to plead guilty;

(6) that the Defendant understands that his answers may later be used against him in a

prosecution for perjury or false statement;

(7) that there is a factual basis for the Defendant’s plea; and further,

I RECOMMEND that the Court accept the Defendant’s plea of guilty and that the

Defendant be adjudged guilty of the offense charged in Count 1 of the two-count Indictment, and

have sentence imposed. A Presentence Report has been ordered. Should this Report and

Recommendation be accepted and the Defendant adjudged guilty, sentencing will be scheduled

before Judge Theresa L. Springmann by separate order and notice. Objections to the Findings

and Recommendation are waived unless filed and served within fourteen (14) days. 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(B).

DATED this 19th day of February 2015.

/s Susan Collins 

Susan Collins

United States Magistrate Judge

2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                          5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule  contains summary  financial  information  extracted from the
Partnership's  audited financial  statements for the nine months ended September
30,  1997 and is  qualified  in its  entirety  by  reference  to such  financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                            1,000
       
<S>                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                       SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                    502
<SECURITIES>                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                               0
<ALLOWANCES>                                0
<INVENTORY>                                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          502
<PP&E>                                      0
<DEPRECIATION>                              0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            502
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     166
<BONDS>                                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<COMMON>                                    0
<OTHER-SE>                                336
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              502
<SALES>                                     0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          296
<CGS>                                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             222
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            74
<INCOME-TAX>                                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        74
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                               74
<EPS-PRIMARY>                            8.39
<EPS-DILUTED>                            8.39
        

</TABLE>
Roberto RODRIGUEZ, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 13-7166.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 2, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
Ricardo DE LOS SANTOS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR the NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS.

No. 13-32.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 12, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

WESTERN DISTRICT 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

 Respondent 

 v. 

FRANCIS ADAMS, JR., 

 Petitioner 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 404 WAL 2015 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 17th day of March, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.