alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### TICHBORNE PRESS, Appellant, v. ANDREWS, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

April 4, 1912.)

Action by the Tichborne Press against Champe S. Andrews. No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. See, also, 147 App. Div. 906, 131 N. Y. Supp. 1146.
**Exhibit1.7**

APPROVED

By the Board of Directors

of WBD Foods OJSC

Minutes No 20-10 as of October 23, 2006

### **Changes and amendments No 6**

#### **TO THE CHARTER**

##### **OF “Wimm-Bill-DannFoods”**

**Open Joint StockCompany (State registrationnumber: 1037700236738, located: Moscow, Yauzskyboulevard, 16/15, room 306)**

Beit resolved to make changes and amendments to WBD Foods OJSC Charter, amendingitem 2.8 of Article 2 with items 2.8.18. – 2.8.20:

“2.8.18. In Voronezh –full title: Open Joint-Stock Company “Wimm-Bill-Dann Foods” affiliate inVoronezh; brief title: Voronezh affiliate of WBD Foods OJSC;

2.8.19. In Kazan’ - fulltitle: Open Joint-Stock Company “Wimm-Bill-Dann Foods” affiliate in Kazan’;brief title: Kazan’ affiliate of WBD Foods OJSC;

2.8.20. In Omsk - fulltitle: Open Joint-Stock Company “Wimm-Bill-Dann Foods” affiliate in Omsk; brieftitle: Omsk affiliate of WBD Foods OJSC”.

----
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

December 27, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
129526 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 129526 COA: 260268 Muskegon CC: 86-027607-FH TIMOTHY PAUL KEENAN, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, th e application for leave to appeal the August 16, 2005 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishi ng entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).

s1219 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

December 27, 2005

Clerk
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-1084

RENEE R. BERRY,
Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.
GARY LOCKE, Secretary, Department of Commerce,
Defendant – Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (1:08-cv-00459-JCC-TRJ)

Submitted: July 27, 2009 Decided: August 17, 2009

Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Renee R. Berry, Appellant Pro Se. Leslie Bonner McClendon, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Renee R. Berry appeals the district court’s order
granting the Defendant's motion to dismiss and dismissing her

civil action. We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated
by the district court. Berry v. Locke , No. 1:08-cv-00459-JCCTRJ (E.D. Va. Nov. 20, 2008). 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.

AFFIRMED
Filed 2/21/08 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2008 ND 18

State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee

v.

Spencer Brandt, Defendant and Appellant

No. 20070172

Appeal from the District Court of Ward County, Northwest Judicial District, the Honorable Douglas L. Mattson, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Kelly A. Dillon, Assistant State’s Attorney, P.O. Box 5005, Minot, ND 58702-5005, for plaintiff and appellee.

Jessica J. Ahrendt, P.O. Box 475, Valley City, ND 58072, for defendant and appellant.

State v. Brandt

No. 20070172

Per Curiam.

[¶1]Spencer Brandt appealed from a criminal judgment and amended criminal judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of aggravated assault, knowing or reckless interference with a telephone during an emergency call and felonious restraint.  Brandt argued the trial court erroneously sentenced him under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-02.1 after finding the knife involved in the case was a dangerous weapon.  He also argued the jury instructions were erroneous.  We summarily affirm the criminal judgment and amended criminal judgment under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3), (4) and (7).  See Victor v. Nebraska, 511 U.S. 1 (1994) and State v. Schneider, 550 N.W.2d 405 (N.D. 1996).

[¶2]Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Carol Ronning Kapsner

Dale V. Sandstrom

Daniel J. Crothers

Mary Muehlen Maring
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, January 02, 2019.

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, January 02, 2019

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A19D0215. CHARLIE JORDAN v. THE STATE.

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

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

SU16CR0858
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit 

__________________________ 

TAMPA BAY FISHERIES, INC. AND

SINGLETON FISHERIES, INC., 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

v. 

UNITED STATES, UNITED STATES CUSTOMS 

AND BORDER PROTECTION, AND DAVID V. 

AGUILAR, ACTING COMMISSIONER, UNITED 

STATES CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, 

Defendants-Appellees, 

AND

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION AND

DEANNA TANNER OKUN, CHAIRMAN, 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

__________________________ 

2012-1419 

__________________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of International 

Trade in case no. 08-CV-0404, Judge Leo M. Gordon. 

__________________________ 

O R D E R 

The court notes that the parties have not filed a 

status report. 

Case: 12-1419 Document: 29 Page: 1 Filed: 12/26/2012
TAMPA BAY FISHERIES, INC. V. US 2

The court’s August 28, 2012 order directed the parties 

to notify this court within 30 days of the final disposition 

of appeal no. 2008-1526 concerning how they believe this 

appeal should proceed. 

Upon consideration thereof, 

IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

The parties are directed to file a status report within 

14 days of the date of filing of this order. 

 FOR THE COURT

 /s/ Jan Horbaly 

 Jan Horbaly 

 Clerk 

s21 

Case: 12-1419 Document: 29 Page: 2 Filed: 12/26/2012
Exhibit 31.3

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Amy E. Miles, Chief Financial Officer of Regal Entertainment Group, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Regal Entertainment Group;

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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.     The
registrant'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 registrant and have:



5.     The
registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):



Date:
March 15, 2005

| |  | By: |  | /s/AMY E. MILESAmy E. Miles
Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
| |  | --- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------



QuickLinks
exhibit10-26.htm

 








ICO, INC. CHANGE IN CONTROL SEVERANCE PLAN

 

Participation Agreement

Date: October 7, 2009

 

To:   Bradley Leuschner

 

The purpose of this Participation Agreement is to confirm your participation in the ICO, Inc. Change in Control Severance Plan (the “Plan”), subject to your executing of this Participation Agreement and returning it to the Company within ten business days after the date set forth above.  Any capitalized terms not
used herein and not defined herein have the meaning ascribed to such terms in the Plan.

 

The Severance Benefit for which you may be eligible pursuant to Section 4(a) of the Plan shall mean 200% of your annual base salary as of the date when a Change in Control occurs (i.e. your base salary multiplied by two (2)).  In addition, the Company will pay or reimburse 100% of your premiums at the rate applicable to you for
your and your dependents’ continued coverage, pursuant to the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (“COBRA”), under the Company’s medical and dental plans to the extent that you and your dependents are participants in such plans immediately prior to your termination, and provided that you elect COBRA continuation coverage, for up to twelve months following termination.

 

For purposes of the definition of “Good Reason” under the Plan, a material change in the geographic location at which you must perform services includes a change in your primary work location to a location that is more than 50 miles from its prior location.

 

As set forth in Section 5 of the Plan, (i) if the aggregate of payments due under this Plan is greater than amounts owed to you under any other agreement and/or severance or separation plan or policy applicable to you (“Other Plan”), then payments made to you under this Plan shall be in lieu of payments owed under such Other
Plan, and (ii) if the aggregate of payments due under this Plan is less than amounts owed under any Other Plan applicable to you, then payments made under the Other Plan shall be in lieu of payments under this Plan.  In the event that you become entitled to and are paid payments under an Other Plan, and subsequently become entitled to payments under this Plan, then the amounts due to you under this Plan shall be reduced by the amounts previously paid to you under the Other Plan.  For the avoidance
of doubt it is noted that the Company’s incentive compensation plans (pursuant to which employees may be awarded stock options or restricted shares) and 401(k) plan are not within the definition of “Other Plan” for the purpose of this paragraph.

 

Further details and requirements related to your Severance Benefit are set forth in the Plan, which is attached to and incorporated into this Participation Agreement.

 


	
ICO, Inc.
	  
	
By:
	
/s/ A. John Knapp, Jr.

	  	
A. John Knapp, Jr..

	  	
President and C.E.O.








 


	
Accepted and agreed to by:

	  	  
	
By:
	
/s/ Bradley Leuschner

	  	
Bradley Leuschner

	
Date:
	
October 7, 2009

	
Attachment: Change in Control Severance Plan
No. 76-598.

#### Sparkman *v.*Carter et al.

Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied.
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 132 (Wednesday, July 14, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37134-37135]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-14903]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration


Science Advisory Board

AGENCY: Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR), National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce 
(DOC).

ACTION: Notice of renewal of charter.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act (FACA), and after consultation with the General Services 
Administration, the Chief Financial Officer and Assistant Secretary for 
Administration has determined that renewal of the NOAA Science Advisory 
Board is in the public interest. The committee has been a successful 
undertaking and has provided advice to the Under Secretary for Oceans 
and Atmosphere on strategies for research, education, and application 
of science to operations and information services. The committee will 
continue to provide such advice and recommendations in the future. The 
structure and responsibilities of the

[[Page 37135]]

Committee are unchanged from when it was originally established in 
September 1997. The Committee will continue to operate in accordance 
with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Cynthia Decker, Executive 
Director, SSMC3, Room 11230, 1315 East-West Hwy., Silver Spring, MD 
20910; Phone Number: 301-734-1156.
    Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4e0d37203a26272f600a2b2d252b3c0e20212f2f60292138"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="56152f38223e3f37781233353d3324163839373778313920">[email protected]</span></a>; or visit the NOAA SAB website at 
http://www.sab.noaa.gov.

    Dated: July 6, 2021.
Eric Locklear,
Acting Chief Financial Officer/CAO, Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Research, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
[FR Doc. 2021-14903 Filed 7-13-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-KD-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>  5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF BURR-BROWN CORPORATION FOR THE
SIX MONTHS ENDED JULY 3, 1999

</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                       1,000
<S>                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>               6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>           DEC-31-1999

<PERIOD-END>                JUL-3-1999
<CASH>                      91,123
<SECURITIES>                40,405
<RECEIVABLES>               61,226
<ALLOWANCES>                592
<INVENTORY>                 51,455
<CURRENT-ASSETS>            244,242
<PP&E>                      207,051
<DEPRECIATION>              114,894
<TOTAL-ASSETS>              355,050
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>       57,952
<BONDS>                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>       0
<PREFERRED>                 0
<COMMON>                    390
<OTHER-SE>                  290,078
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-
EQUITY>                     355,050
<SALES>                     129,217
<TOTAL-REVENUES>            129,217
<CGS>                       62,871
<TOTAL-COSTS>               62,871
<OTHER-EXPENSES>            43,251
<LOSS-PROVISION>            (99)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>          231
<INCOME-PRETAX>             24,341
<INCOME-TAX>                6,572
<INCOME-CONTINUING>         17,769
<DISCONTINUED>              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>             0
<CHANGES>                   0
<NET-INCOME>                17,769
<EPS-BASIC>               0.48
<EPS-DILUTED>               0.46






</TABLE>
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Benny Vela

, * From the 1 0 6 th District Court

of Dawson County

Trial Court No. 17

- 7720

.

Vs. No. 11

- 1 8

- 00 2 66

- CR * June 13 , 2019

The Sta te of Texas, * Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

(Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.

, Stretcher, J., and Wright, S.C.J.,

sitting by assignment)

(Willson, J., not participating)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there

is no error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court ’ s

opinion, the judgment of the tria l court is in all things affirmed.
Exhibit 32.1

** **

** **

 

 

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Real Estate Associates Limited VI (the"Partnership"), for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2009 as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), StevenD. Cordes, as the equivalent of the chief executive officer of the Partnership,and Stephen B. Waters, as the equivalent of the chief financial officer of thePartnership, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to thebest of his knowledge:

 

(1)   The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)   Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership.

 

 

 

 

This certification isfurnished with this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Partnership for purposes of Section 18of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 12

- 00203

- CV

ALAN W. CATTLETT APPELLANT

V.

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A ., AS
TRUSTEE FOR THE
STRUCTURED ASSET
INVESTMENT L OAN TRUST,
MORTGAGE PASS

- THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2004

- 8 APPELLEE

------------

FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF TARRANT COUNTY

------------



### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 

### AND JUDGMENT

------------

On February 14, 2013 , we notified appellant that his brief had not been

filed as required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38 .6(a). See Tex. R.

App. P. 38.6(a). We stated we could dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2

unless appellant or any party desiring to continue this appeal filed with the court

within ten days a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal. S ee Tex.

R. App. P. 42.3. We have not received any response.

Because appellant 's brief has not been filed, we dismiss the appeal for

want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a), 42.3(b), 43.2(f).

Appellant shall pay all costs of this appeal, for whic h let execution issue.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: GABRIEL, J.; LIVINGSTON, C.J.; and DAUPHINOT, J.

DELIVERED: March 7, 2013
Motion Denied and Order filed August 30, 2016

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-16-00556-CV

NO. 14-16-00578-CV

____________

IN THE INTEREST OF A.L.H., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 313th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2014-00466J

ORDER

These are consolidated, accelerated appealsfrom a judgment in a suit in which 

the termination of the parent-child relationship is at issue (“parental termination 

case”). The notices of appeal were filed on July 15, 2016 and July 21, 2016.

Appellants have established indigence or are presumed to be indigent. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 20.1(a). The reporter’s record was originally due within 10 days after the 

notice of appeal was filed. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.1(b); 28.4(a)(1). Through 

extensions granted to appellants and the court reporter, the reporter’s record was 

most recently due on August 25, 2016. When we granted the last extension, we noted 

that no further extensions would be granted. The record has not been filed. On 

August 25, 2016, Jill Bartek, the official court reporter for the 313th District Court, 
filed a further motion for extension of time to file the reporter’s record.

Appeals in parental termination cases and child protection cases are to be 

brought to final disposition within 180 days of the date the notice of appeal is filed.

See Tex. R. Jud. Admin. 6.2(a) (effective May 1, 2012). The trial and appellate courts 

are jointly responsible for ensuring that the appellate record is timely filed. See Tex. 

R. App. P. 35.3(c). The trial court must direct the court reporter to immediately 

commence the preparation of the reporter’s record and must arrange for a substitute 

reporter, if necessary. See Tex. R. App. P. 28.4(b)(1).

Because the reporter’s record has not been filed timely in this accelerated 

appeal, we issue the following order:

The motion for extension to file the reporter’s record is DENIED. We order 

Jill Bartek, the official court reporter, to file the record in this appeal on or before

September 2, 2016. If Bartek does not timely file the record as ordered, the court 

will issue an order requiring her to appear at a hearing to show cause why the record 

has not been timely filed and why she should not be held in contempt of court for 

failing to file the record as ordered. Contempt of court is punishable by a fine and/or 

confinement in jail.

PER CURIAM
#### BOLAND et al. v. SOKOLSKI.

(Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County.

November 26, 1907.)

1. Notice—Service—Sufficiency.

The Legislature may prescribe that notice required as a condition precedent to the doing of an act may be given by publication, or by leaving it at the place of business or dwelling house of the one to be notified; but, in the absence of such provision, the notice must be personal.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 37, Notice, § 23.]

2. Mechanics’ Liens—Undertaking to Discharge—Justification of Sure-

ties—Notice—Sufficiency of Service.

Since Mechanic’s Lien Law, Laws 1897, p. 523, c. 418, § 18, requiring service of notice of the- justification of sureties on an undertaking to discharge a mechanic’s lien, does not provide any substitute for personal service, the service must be personal; Code Civ. Proc. §§ 796, 797, authorizing other service of papers in actions being inapplicable. Mechanic’s Lien Law, Laws 1897, p. 519, c. 418, § 11, providing that service of notice of lien may be made by leaving a copy at the owner’s last known place of residence, indicates the omission of a similar provision in section 18 was intentional.

In the matter of a mechanic’s lien of Charles H. Boland and another, assigned to Frederidc Saland, against Albert Sokolski. Motion by the assignee to disallow the justification of sureties on an undertaking to discharge the lien. Granted.

Feltenstein & Rosenstein (Abraham Rosenstein, of counsel), for the motion.

■ Johnson & Johnson (Lewis Johnson, of counsel), opposed.

GIEGERICH, J.

The question is whether notice of justification of sureties upon an undertaking given to discharge a mechanic’s lien *767must be personal, or whether it is sufficient to leave such notice at the place of residence of the lienor with a person of suitable age and to mail copies thereof to the lienor. The Legislature has power to say that the notice required as a condition precedent to the doing of an act may be given by publication or by leaving it at the place of business or dwelling house of the party to be notified; but, in the absence of such legislative provision, such notice must be personal (Rathbun v. Acker, 18 Barb. 393; McDermott v. Board of Police, 25 Barb. 635; People ex rel. Niagara Bridge & Canandaigua R. Co. v. Lockport & B. R. Co., 13 Hun, 211; Mitchell v. Clary, 20 Misc. Rep. 595,46 N. Y. Supp. 446.

Section 18 of the mechanic’s lien law (chapter 418, p. 523, Laws of 1897), which requires the service of notice in such a case as this, makes no provision for any substitute for personal service. Sections 796 and 797 of the Code of Civil Procedure have no application, because the notice in question is not a paper in an action. Kerr v. McGuire, 28 N. Y. 446, 453. The fact that the Legislature in section 11 of the act provides that service of a copy of the notice of lien may be made by leaving it at the last known place of residence of the owner indicates that the omission of such a provision in section 18 with respect to a notice of the kind in question was intentional.

Motion granted, with $10 costs.