alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Cite as State v. Reeder , 2018-Ohio-1352.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

CLINTON COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2016-05-011

: D E C I S I O N - vs - 4/9/2018 : JASON DANIEL REEDER, : Defendant-Appellant. :

CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM CLINTON COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Case No. CRI2015 5192

Richard W. Moyer, Clinton County Prosecuting A ttorney, Lindsay M. Fleissner,103 East Main Street, Wilmington, Ohio 45177, for plaintiff-appelleeCraig A. Newburger, 477 Forest Edge Drive, South Lebanon, Ohio 45065, for defendantappellant

Per Curiam. {¶ 1} This cause came on to be considered upon a notice of appeal, the transcript of the docket and journal entries, the transcript of proceedings and original papers from the Clinton County Court of Common Pleas, and upon a briefs filed by counsel. {¶ 2} Counsel for appellant, Jason Daniel Reeder, has filed a brief with this court pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), which (1) indicates thatClinton CA2016-05-011

- 2 - a careful review of the record from the proceedings below fails to disclose any errors by the trial court prejudicial to the rights of appellant upon which an assignment of error may be predicated; (2) lists four potential errors "that might arguably support the appeal," Anders at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; (3) requests that this court review the record independently to determine whether the proc eedings are free from prejudicial error and without infringement of appellant's constituti onal rights; (4) requests permission to withdraw as counsel for appellant on the basis that the appeal is wholly frivolous; and (5) certifies that a copy of both the brief and motion to withdraw have been served upon appellant. {¶ 3} Having allowed appellant sufficient time to respond, and no response having been received we have accordingly examined the record and find no error prejudicial to appellant's rights in the proceedings in the tr ial court. The motion of counsel for appellant requesting to wit hdraw as counsel is grant ed, and this a ppeal is dismissed for the reason that it is wholly frivolous.

S. POWELL, P.J., PIPER and M. POWELL, JJ., concur.
Dennis Thomas

Director of Regulatory Compliance
• Opening Rate – About 1 a day

• Pilot Program: 

• 79% of checking accounts retained

• 70% of savings accounts initially retained

• 1st Q 2012:

• 74% of checking accounts retained

• 53% of savings accounts retained

• Profitability - varies

• Checking Non-Retention – 21%
 Access to computers

 Unsuccessful marketing efforts

 Desire for checks

 Paper statements

 Still have denials

 Marketing

 Competition
 Our end goal 

 What we knew and what we now know

 There is a market

 Flexibility/Acceptance of Risk are key

 Customers/Front-line employees

 Employee input
 Written notice

 Fees

 Money Orders

 Risk tolerance 

 Transaction Limit
 Continue accounts as alternative

 Seasoning to switch to other accounts

 Alternative to Treasury ETA Account
#### FUND, Respondent, v. SPIVACK, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

March 22, 1912.)

Action by Sam Fund against Joseph Spivack. E. M. Grout, for appellant. J. F. McIntyre, for respondent. No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. Order filed. See, also, 132 N. Y. Supp. 1147.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

EDWARD THOMAS

, 1

Petitioner Below

, Appellant,

v.

ANGELICA WHITE

,

Respondent Below,

Appellee. §

§ No. 145 , 2019

§

§ Court Below

—

Family Court

§ of the State of Delaware

§

§ File No. CN13

- 0 4968

§ Petition No. 18

- 31712

§

§

§

Submitted: July 8, 2019

Decided: July 16 , 2019

ORDER

On June 11 , 2019 , the Senior Court Clerk issued a notice , by certified mail,

directing the appellant to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for

his failure to pay the Family Court filing fee. After the appellant failed to arrange

for redelivery of the certified mailing , the notice was sent by first class mail on June

26, 2019

. The appellant failed to respond to the notice to show cause within the

required ten

- day period . Dismissal of this action is therefore deemed to be

unopposed.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule s 3(b)(2)

and 29 (b ), t hat this appeal is DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ James T. Vaughn, Jr.

Justice

1 The Court previously assigned pseudonyms to the parties under Supreme Court Rule 7(d).
(March 14, 1985)

#### In the Matter of Juliann Persichetti, Appellant-Respondent, v Thomas F. Bollatto, Jr., et al., Respondents, and Carl Wright et al., Respondents-Appellants.

— In a proceeding pursuant to article 16 of the Election Law, the cross appeals are from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Ruskin, J.), dated March 8,1985, which declared that petitioner had timely filed objections to the petition nominating certain candidates for elective offices in the Village of Sloatsburg.

Judgment reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and proceeding dismissed on the merits.

The last day for filing an independent nominating petition for the offices to be filled at the March 19,1985 village election was February 26,1985 (Election Law § 15-108 [8] [a]). Any objection to such a petition was required to be filed in the office of the village clerk no later than one day thereafter, i.e., on or before February 27 (Election Law § 15-108 [10]). The objections to the petition nominating the candidates in question were not filed with the village clerk on or before February 27. Instead, the objections were sent by mail in an envelope which was postmarked February 28. Since the envelope was not postmarked prior to midnight on February 27, the objections contained therein may not be deemed timely filed pursuant to Election Law § 1-106 (1). These time limits are mandatory and “ ‘the judiciary is foreclosed from fashioning exceptions, however reasonable they might be made to appear’ ” *(Matter of Hutchins v Culver,*104 AD2d 533, 534, quoting *Matter of Sheehan v Aylward,*84 AD2d 602, 603, *affd*54 NY2d 934).

The failure to file the objections in a timely manner renders them null and void (Election Law § 15-108 [10]; *see also, Matter of Bush v Salerno,*51 NY2d 95, 98). Accordingly, the courts lack jurisdiction to entertain any proceeding to invalidate the nominating petition, and the judgment under review must therefore be reversed. In light of this disposition, we do not address the parties’ remaining contentions. Titone, J. P., Thompson, Bracken and Rubin, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 31.2  Certification I, Eric T. Jones, certify that:  (1) I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Thunder Mountain Gold Inc.  (2) Based on my knowledge, this 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 report; (3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; (4) The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) 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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the small business issuer 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 registrant is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;  (b)  evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  (c) disclosed in this report any changes in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants first fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting.  (5) The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): (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 small business issuer's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting. /s/ Eric T. Jones By  ____________________________________ Eric T. Jones Secretary/Treasurer and Director and Chief Financial Accounting Officer Date:   August 14, 2007
#### MARTINE, Appellant, v. HUDSON VALLEY RY. CO., Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division; Third Department.

November 13, 1907.)

Action by Mary E. Martine, as administratrix, etc., of Godfrey R. Martine, deceased, against-the Hudson Valley Railway *1137Company.

No opinion. Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                 Exhibit 3(i)(f)


                            CERTIFICATE OF CORRECTION
                                     OF THE

                        CERTIFICATE OF CORRECTION TO THE
                      RESTATED CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION

                                       OF
                               POWERTEL USA, INC.


         POWERTEL USA, INC., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), certifies
pursuant to Section 103(f) of the General Corporation Law of the State of
Delaware that:

         1. The Company filed on January 24, 1997, a Certificate of Correction
to the Restated Certificate of Incorporation of POWERTEL USA, INC., (SRV number
971024478) (the "Certificate of Correction").

         2. The Certificate of Correction was an inaccurate record of the
corporate action and is null and void AB INITIO as confirmed by an ORDER
APPROVING AND CONFIRMING DEBTOR'S FIRST AMENDED PLAN OF REORGANIZATION, AS
REVISED AND AMENDED of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court of the District of Nevada, Case
No: 97-30265-BMG, dated September 15, 1998.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Certificate of
Correction to be executed by its duly authorized officer this 25th day of
November, 1998.


                                            POWERTEL USA, INC.


                                       By:     /s/ Richard A. Cascarilla
                                            --------------------------------
                                            Richard A. Cascarilla, President
#### JOHN FEIST & SONS CO., Respondents, v. PÓWELL, Appellant, et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

March 27, 1912.)

Action by the John Feist & Sons Company against John W. Powell, impleaded with others. No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs.
PacifiCorp 12.31.14 EX 10.1






EXHIBIT 10.1
SUMMARY OF KEY TERMS OF COMPENSATION ARRANGEMENTS WITH PACIFICORP'S NAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS 


PacifiCorp's named executive officers (other than its Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Gregory E. Abel) and its other employee directors each receive an annual salary and participate in health insurance and other benefit plans on the same basis as other employees, as well as certain other compensation and benefit plans described in PacifiCorp's Annual Report on Form 10-K. Mr. Abel is employed by PacifiCorp's parent company, Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company ("BHE") and is not directly compensated by PacifiCorp. PacifiCorp reimburses BHE for the cost of Mr. Abel's time spent on PacifiCorp matters, including compensation paid to him by BHE, pursuant to an intercompany administrative services agreement among BHE and its subsidiaries. 


The named executive officers and employee directors are also eligible to receive a cash incentive award under PacifiCorp's Annual Incentive Plan ("AIP"). The AIP provides for a discretionary annual cash award that is determined on a subjective basis and paid in December. In addition to the AIP, the named executive officers and employee directors are eligible to receive discretionary cash performance awards periodically during the year to reward the accomplishment of significant non-recurring tasks or projects. The named executive officers and employee directors are participants in PacifiCorp's Long-Term Incentive Partnership Plan ("LTIP"). A copy of the LTIP is attached as Exhibit 10.10 to this Form 10-K. 


Base salary for named executive officers and employee directors for PacifiCorp's fiscal year ending December 31, 2015 (excluding Mr. Abel) is shown in the following table:


	
					
	Name and Title
	 
	Base Salary

	 
	 
	 

	Douglas K. Stuver
	 
	$
	258,300
	


	Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 

	Cindy A. Crane
	 
	300,000
	


	President and Chief Executive Officer, Rocky Mountain Power
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 

	R. Patrick Reiten
	 
	330,000
	


	President and Chief Executive Officer, Pacific Power
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 

	Micheal G. Dunn
	 
	330,000
	


	President and Chief Executive Officer, PacifiCorp Energy
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 

	Natalie L. Hocken
	 
	234,090
	


	Director
	 
	 






Messrs. Reiten and Dunn and Ms. Hocken are directors of PacifiCorp, but do not receive additional compensation for their service as directors other than what they receive as employees of PacifiCorp. Messrs. Abel, Anderson and Goodman are employees of BHE, but do not receive additional compensation for their service as directors other than what they receive as employees of BHE.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET ON FORM 10Q FOR THE PERIOD ENDED FEBRUARY 28, 1998
AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AS FILED ON FORM 10Q FOR THE THREE
MONTHS ENDED FEBRUARY 28, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-28-1998
<CASH>                                           3,659
<SECURITIES>                                    29,634
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,313
<ALLOWANCES>                                       396
<INVENTORY>                                        658
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                41,577
<PP&E>                                          12,479
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,226
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  50,423
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           13,396
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            82
<OTHER-SE>                                      36,945
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    37,027
<SALES>                                         10,521
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                10,521
<CGS>                                            4,093
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,093
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,651
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   200
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (740)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        12
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (752)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (752)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.09)
        

</TABLE>
Ex. 10.214 RRA Counterpart 7% 2020


Exhibit 10.214


Counterpart to Registration Rights Agreement
December 22, 2014
Each of the undersigned hereby absolutely, unconditionally and irrevocably agrees as a Guarantor, as defined in the Registration Rights Agreement, dated May 6, 2014 by and among Endo Finance LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and Endo Finco Inc., a Delaware corporation, the Guarantors party thereto, RBC Capital Markets, LLC and Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., relating to the 7.00% Senior Notes due 2020, to be bound by the terms and provisions of such Registration Rights Agreement.





1




Exhibit 10.214


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the undersigned has executed this counterpart as of the date first written above.


	
		
	BOCA PHARMACAL, LLC, as a 

	    by GENERICS INTERNATIONAL (US), INC., its

	     sole member




	
		
	By:
	/s/ Deanna Voss

	 
	Name: Deanna Voss 

	 
	Title: Assistant Secretary






	
		
	DAVA INTERNATIONAL, LLC, as a

	    by DAVA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., its

	     sole member




	
		
	By:
	/s/ Deanna Voss

	 
	Name: Deanna Voss 

	 
	Title: Assistant Secretary






	
		
	DAVA CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, INC., as a




	
		
	By:
	/s/ Deanna Voss

	 
	Name: Deanna Voss 

	 
	Title: Assistant Secretary





2
2016

Federal Deposit 

Insurance Corporation

This Annual Report was produced by talented and dedicated staff. 

To these individuals, we would like to offer our sincere thanks and 

appreciation. Special recognition is given to the following for their 

contributions:

♦ Jannie F. Eaddy 

♦ Barbara A. Glasby

♦ Financial Reporting Section Staff

♦ Receivership Support Section Staff

♦ Division and Office Points-of-Contact

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION
#### Kiel D. TURNER, Petitioner—Appellant, v. DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 05-7791.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 27, 2006.

Decided: May 3, 2006.

Kiel D. Turner, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. Anderson, III, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER. CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Kiel D. Turner, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The order is not appeal-able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of ap-pealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Turner has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

MARGARET ANN BLANKENSHIP, )

)

 Plaintiff, )

)

 v. ) CIVIL NO. 1:16cv222

)

NANCY A. BERRYHILL, )

ACTING COMMISSIONER OF )

SOCIAL SECURITY, )

)

 Defendant. )

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on the Commissioner’s “Unopposed Motion for an

Indicative Ruling on its Rule 60(b) Motion for Relief From Judgment”, filed on January 19,

2018. Also before the court are Plaintiff’s motion for attorney fees, filed on March 31, 2018, and

motion to dismiss, without prejudice, motion for attorney fees, filed on April 16, 2016. Finally,

on May 1, 2018, the Commissioner filed an “Unopposed Motion for Relief From Judgment”.

The background facts are as follows. Plaintiff commenced this action pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking review of a final decision of the Commissioner. Following briefing by

the parties, on June 29, 2017, the Court entered judgment in favor of the Commissioner. On

August 28, 2017, Plaintiff filed a timely Notice of Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals

for the Seventh Circuit. Upon further consideration, the Commissioner has determined that

judgment should be vacated and this matter should be reversed with remand for a new

administrative hearing and decision pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) allows the Court to relieve a party from a final

order for “any . . . reason justifying relief . . . .” Because the Commissioner now agrees that the
case should be reversed with remand for further administrative proceedings, and the Seventh

Circuit Court of Appeals has remanded for that purpose, the Commissioner submits that Rule

60(b)(6) relief from the Court’s June 29, 2017, judgment is appropriate. The Commissioner

states that Plaintiff has been advised of, and agrees with, the nature and substance of this motion.

Accordingly, the motion for indicative ruling [DE 28] and the motion for relief from

judgment [DE 33] are both hereby GRANTED. This Court’s June 29, 2017 Opinion and Order

is hereby VACATED. Further, Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss motion for attorney fees [DE 31] is

hereby GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s motion for attorney fees [DE30] is hereby DISMISSED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

The decision of the ALJ denying Plaintiff’s application for benefits is hereby

REMANDED for further proceedings as agreed by the parties herein.

SO ORDERED.

 

 Entered: May 24, 2018.

 s/ William C. Lee 

 William C. Lee, Judge

 United States District Court

2
#### HAGAN, Respondent, v. BIPPART et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Divi-v sion, First Department.

April 4, 1912.)

Action by James .W. Hagan against Achill Bippart and others. C. A. Jayne, for appellants. P. W. Carney, for respondent. No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. Order filed. See, also, 137 App. Div. 947, 123 N. Y. Supp. 1118.
2014.12.31 EX 10.10






EXHIBIT 10.10


Summary Description of 
Named Executive Officer Compensation


Effective August 4, 2014, the annual base salary of Ronald J. Foster, who was identified as a named executive officer in the Company’s 2014 proxy statement, was increased from $297,440 to $325,000, pursuant to an employment agreement dated November 6, 2014. There have been no other changes in compensation for current officers who were identified as named executive officers in the Company's 2014 proxy statement.