alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## NO. 12

- 10

- 00 12 4

- C R

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

§ IN RE: GARY LYNN ROBINSON , RELATOR 

### § ORIGINAL PROCEEDING


### § MEMORANDUM OPINION In this original mandamus proceeding, Gary Lynn Robinson alleges that he entered into a plea agreement in connection with an aggravated robbery charge. He alleges further that the agreement did not require payment of restitution, but the judgment of conviction provides that he must pay restitution of $138,658.85. He urges this court to issue a writ of mandamus directing the Wood County District Clerk to expunge the restitution amount from the judgment and notify all interested parties of the change. This court has the authority to issue a writ of mandamus against a judge of a district or county court in its appellate district and all writs necessary to enforce this court’s jurisdiction. See T EX

. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN

. § 22.221 (Vernon 2004). In order for this court to issue mandamus against a district clerk, it must be establis hed that issuance of the writ is necessary to enforce its jurisdiction. See id .; In re Coronado , 980 S.W.2d 691, 692

- 93 (Tex. App.

– San Antonio 1998, orig. proceeding). Here, Robinson seeks relief from a felony judgment of conviction. This court has no j urisdiction in criminal law matters pertaining to relief from final felony judgments. That jurisdiction lies exclusively with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. T EX

. C ODE C RIM

. P ROC

. A NN

. art

. 11.07 § 3 (Vernon Supp. 2009). Consequently, Robinson has not demonstrated that the exercise of this court’s mandamus authority against the Wood County District Clerk is necessary to enforce its jurisdiction.2 We note that Robinson has presented this issue to the court of criminal appeals through a postconvictio n habeas application. In an unpublished opinion, the court of criminal appeals held that although Robinson was not provided an opportunity to contest the $138,658.85 in restitution, he could have raised the issue on direct appeal. See Ex parte Robinson, No. WR

- 40,449

- 08 (Tex. Crim. App. June 18, 2008) (not designated for publication). Even if we had postconviction felony jurisdiction, this decision would bar
our review of Robinson’s restitution issue. Robinson’s petition for writ of mandamus is dismisse d

. All pending motions are
overruled as moot.

BRIAN HOYLE

__ Justice
Opinion delivered May 12 , 2010. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997             DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997             DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          25,677                  59,063
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                25,677                  59,063
<PP&E>                                               0                       0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  25,677                  59,063
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,386                   4,641
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                             0                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,308,128)             (1,284,997)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    25,677                  59,063
<SALES>                                              0                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   331                       0
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                23,462                  14,242
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (23,131)                (14,242)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (23,131)                (14,242)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (23,131)                (14,242)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0                       0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0                       0
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 31.1




Certification
of Principal Executive Officer


Pursuant
to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002




I,
William J. Garner, MD certify that:




1.     
I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K /A of Urigen
Pharmaceuticals, 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 registrant as of, and
for, the periods presented in this report;




4.     
The registrant’s other certifying officer 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)) for the registrant 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, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this 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 change in the registrant’s internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal
quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.




5.     
The registrant’s other certifying officer 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 the registrant’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 registrant’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 registrant’s internal control over financial
reporting.






March
      7, 2008
              By:
              /s/ William
      J. Garner, MDWILLIAM
      J. GARNER, MDChief
      Financial Officer
                (Principal
      Executive Officer)
Case 1:18-cv-10077-RWZ *SEALED* Document 11 Filed 01/16/18 Page 1 of 9
Case 1:18-cv-10077-RWZ *SEALED* Document 11 Filed 01/16/18 Page 2 of 9
Case 1:18-cv-10077-RWZ *SEALED* Document 11 Filed 01/16/18 Page 3 of 9
Case 1:18-cv-10077-RWZ *SEALED* Document 11 Filed 01/16/18 Page 4 of 9
Case 1:18-cv-10077-RWZ *SEALED* Document 11 Filed 01/16/18 Page 5 of 9
Case 1:18-cv-10077-RWZ *SEALED* Document 11 Filed 01/16/18 Page 6 of 9
Case 1:18-cv-10077-RWZ *SEALED* Document 11 Filed 01/16/18 Page 7 of 9
Case 1:18-cv-10077-RWZ *SEALED* Document 11 Filed 01/16/18 Page 8 of 9
Case 1:18-cv-10077-RWZ *SEALED* Document 11 Filed 01/16/18 Page 9 of 9
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-40826

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

LARRY BENARD HOLLAND,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:96-CR-13-11

- - - - - - - - - -

June 17, 1997

Before SMITH, STEWART, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

 Larry Benard Holland appeals his guilty-plea conviction to

possession with intent to distribute cocaine base and

distribution of cocaine base.

A notice of appeal must “designate the judgment, or order or

part thereof appealed from.” Fed. R. App. P. 3(c). Although

Holland stated in his notice of appeal that he was appealing “the

order regarding the Government’s Motion for Downward Departure,
No. 96-40826

- 2 -

and its effect on sentencing entered in this action on the 5th

day of August, 1996,” he argues in his appellate brief the type

of sentencing guidelines issue which he reserved as his right to

appeal. This demonstration of an intent to appeal his sentence,

combined with the lack of prejudice to the Government, who has

already replied in its appellate brief to Holland’s sentencing

issue, allows this court to liberally construe Holland’s notice

of appeal such that it is not jurisdictionally defective for

failing to correctly designate the ruling from which it is

appealing. See United States v. Winn, 948 F.2d 145, 154 (5th

Cir. 1991).

Because all of the acts of his coconspirators were

reasonably foreseeable to him as relevant conduct, the district

court did not commit plain error by calculating as the amount of

drugs attributable to Holland, the entire amount of drugs seized

or obtained during the course of the conspiracy. See U.S.S.G.

§ 1B1.3(a)(1)(B); United States v. Calverley, 37 F.3d 160, 162-64

(5th Cir. 1994) (en banc).

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit








Exhibit 10.6


MacDermid, Incorporated


Scot Benson
[Address]
[Address]




June 6, 2013




Re: Severance Agreement


Dear Scot: 
I write to confirm our agreement regarding severance in the case where your employment with MacDermid is involuntarily terminated without Cause (as defined herein) or within two (2) years after a Change of Control (as defined herein). If your employment with MacDermid is involuntarily terminated without Cause then MacDermid will pay you a severance equal to one (1) year’s base salary, based upon the then most recent year period. In the alternative, if your employment is involuntarily terminated within two (2) years after a Change of Control then you will be paid a severance equal to two (2) year’s base salary and cash bonus, based upon the then most recent two year period. In order to receive either foregoing severance payment, you will be required to execute MacDermid’s standard termination agreement (form attached) containing a full, final general release in favor of MacDermid. 
As used in this agreement, Cause and Change of Control shall mean: 
	
			
	 
	1.
	Cause – 




	
			
	 
	(i)
	you are convicted of, or plead guilty or nolo contendere to, any crime constituting a felony or involving dishonesty or moral turpitude; 




	
			
	 
	(ii)
	you engage in any activity that amounts to negligence and that significantly affects the business affairs or reputation of the company; 




	
			
	 
	(iii)
	you willfully fail to perform your duties, or perform your duties in a grossly negligent manner, which failure or performance continues for twenty (20) days after written notice from the company; or 




	
			
	 
	(iv)
	you violate the Company’s standard policies, or the law, and such violation creates a substantial liability (actual or potential) for the company. 






	
			
	 
	2.
	Change of Control – 




	
			
	 
	(i)
	acquisition by any person or group, except for an employee benefit plan sponsored by the company, of beneficial ownership of 50% or more of the company’s voting securities in any combination; 




	
			
	 
	(ii)
	the sale of all or substantially all of the assets of MacDermid; or 




	
			
	 
	(iii)
	individuals, who as of January 1, 2002 are members of MacDermid’s Board of Directors (the “Incumbents”), and any additional individuals (“Additional Directors”) who are recommended to become Directors by a majority of the Incumbents and/or any then previously so recommended and elected Additional Directors, cease for any reason to constitute a majority of the Board of Directors of MacDermid. 




Please indicate your acceptance and agreement by countersigning and returning this letter to my attention. 











	
	
	 

	Sincerely,

	 

	/s/ John L. Cordani

	John L. Cordani






ACCEPTED AND AGREED:


/s/ Scot Benson
Scot Benson
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: NOVAK & NOVAK TRADING CO., INC., JAY A. NOVAK, AND IRVING A. OLSHEVER 

DOCKET NUMBER: 186 

DOCUMENT TYPE: ISSUANCE OF AMENDED COMPLAINT 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Commodity Exchange Authority 

Washington, D. C. 20250 

ISSUANCE OF AMENDED COMPLAINT - CEA DOCKET NO. 186 

(Administrative Hearing Under the Commodity Exchange Act) 

A motion to amend the complaint in CEA Docket No. 186 has been approved by 

the Assistant Secretary of Agriculture and granted by the Referee. Respondents 

named in the complaint are: 

Novak & Novak Trading Co., Inc., 

Jay A. Novak, and 

Irving A. Olshever 

(New York, New York) 

The amendment to the complaint adds a charge that the respondent corporation 

in unfit to engage as futures commission merchant. The original complaint 

charged that during the period March 31, 1969, through January 30, 1970, the 

respondent corporation, while registered as a futures commission merchant under 

the Act, failed to meet minimum financial requirements prescribed for futures 

commission merchants by varying amounts ranging up to $ 14,000. It further 

charges that as of March 31 and November 30, 1969, all of the respondents 

submitted to the Commodity Exchange Authority false financial reports on behalf 

of the respondent corporation. 

The issuance of a complaint under the Commodity Exchange Act does not 

constitute proof of violation of the law. Such violation is established only 

when the Judicial Officer of the Department has made a determination that the 

evidence substantiates allegations in the complaint. Complaints are filed in 

the Office of the Hearing Clerk of the Department of Agriculture and are a 

matter of public record. Pending disposition by the Judicial Officer, it is the 

policy of the Commodity Exchange Authority not to comment or elaborate on 

charges contained in complaints or to discuss evidence on which they are based. 

The public hearing on the complaint is scheduled to be resumed before the 

Referee at 10:00 local time, on May 11, 1972, in New York, New York. 

LOAD-DATE: June 16, 2008 
Page 2
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.17


                             AMERIGAS PROPANE, INC.
                               ANNUAL BONUS PLAN
                               EFFECTIVE 10-1-98

                                LEADERSHIP TEAM
                                ---------------


TARGET BONUS:

Target bonus percents are separately established for each position and are set
at the 75th percentile of competitive practice.

Target Bonus amount to be leveraged up or down based on achievement of certain
goals, which will be determined annually by management and approved by the Board
of Directors. Such goals will be 100% financial for the President/CEO and a
combination of financial and non-financial goals for all other participants with
70% of the target bonus based on financial performance and 30% on non-financial
goals. The focus of both the financial and the non-financial goals will be
performance standards that are under management's control and which reward
management for improving the overall quality of the business.

A leverage table will be used for each of the established goals to reward
management for degree of achievement. Goals are independent of one another, i.e.
bonus payments will be made for achievement of any one or more of the
established goals in accordance with measurement criteria and leverage tables.


AMERIGAS FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE
------------------------------

The AmeriGas financial performance measurement will be the Company's actual
EBITDA achievement for the fiscal year. The minimum level of acceptable
achievement for bonus purposes will be set at approximately 80% of the Company's
EBITDA budget for the fiscal year.


AMERIGAS NON-FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE
----------------------------------

Three non-financial goals will be established each year, each weighted at 10% of
the target bonus opportunity. The non-financial goals will be directly linked to
areas of significant business focus as determined by senior management and the
Board of Directors. Leverage tables will be established for each goal with
payouts ranging from 0 to 150%, based on degree of achievement of the targeted
objective.
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 99.2




                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 the Annual  Report on Form 10-K of Marvel  Enterprises,
Inc. (the  "Company")  for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Kenneth P. West, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  ss. 1350, as adopted  pursuant to ss. 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of
2002, that: (1) The Report 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.


         -----------------------
         Kenneth P. West
         Chief Financial Officer
         [date]
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 119 (Wednesday, June 20, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 33054]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-15448]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Navy


Notice of Availability of Government-Owned Invention; Available 
for Licensing

AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DOD.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of the Navy hereby gives notice of the general 
availability of exclusive or partially exclusive licenses under the 
following pending patent. Any license granted shall comply with 35 
U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404. Applications will be evaluated 
utilizing the following criteria: (1) Ability to manufacture and market 
the technology; (2) manufacturing and marketing ability; (3) time 
required to bring technology to market and production rate; (4) 
royalties; (5) technical capabilities; and (6) small business status.
    Patent application Serial Number 09/747,521 entitled ``Methods for 
Protection Against Lethal Infection with Bacillus Anthracis'' filed 21 
December 2000. The present invention relates to the use selected genes 
from the pathogen Bacillus anthracis for constructing a plasmid or DNA-
based vaccine which can be used to immunize susceptible hosts against 
the pathogenic effects of B. anthracis infection. Moreover, the 
invention describes the protective effects of immunization with DNA 
constructs encoding the Protective Antigen (PA) or the Lethal Factor 
(LF) and mutants thereof. Most importantly, the invention describes the 
complete protection of hosts following co-immunization of a host with 
PA and LF demonstrating a surprising synergistic effect. Lastly, the 
invention teaches the use of the synergistic effect of PA and/or LF 
genes for use as a general adjuvant for co-immunization with other DNA 
or protein based vaccines.

DATES: Applications for an exclusive or partially exclusive license may 
be submitted at any time from the date of this notice.

ADDRESSES: The Office of Technology Transfer, Naval Medical Research 
Center, 503 Robert Grant Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20910-7500, telephone 
(301) 319-7428.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Charles Schlagel, Director, Office 
of Technology Transfer, Naval Medical Research Center, 503 Robert Grant 
Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20910-7500, telephone (301) 319-7428 or E-Mail 
at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#92e1f1fafef3f5f7fef1d2fcffe0f1bcfcf3e4ebbcfffbfe"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e19282898d8086848d82a18f8c9382cf8f809798cf8c888d">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: June 11, 2001.
J.L. Roth,
Lieutenant Commander, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, 
Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 01-15448 Filed 6-19-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Booker T. WASHINGTON, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. The RITZ CARLTON HOTEL COMPANY, LLC, Defendant—Appellee.

No. 10-56831.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 19, 2011.*

Filed Jan. 10, 2012.

Booker T. Washington, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Booker T. Washington appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his request for leave to proceed in forma pau-peris in his Title VII action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the determination that a complaint lacks arguable substance in law or fact, and for an abuse of discretion the denial of leave to proceed in forma pauperis. *Tripati v. First Nat’l Bank & Trust,*821 F.2d 1368, 1369 (9th Cir.1987). We reverse and remand.

The district court concluded that Washington’s proposed complaint was frivolous or without merit because Washington had alleged the same claim against the same defendant in an earlier action that was dismissed with prejudice. However, a review of the record shows that in this action, Washington alleged a claim based on a retaliatory termination, while the prior action focused on alleged discrimination during Washington’s employment. Accordingly, we reverse and remand to the district court for further proceedings.

Washington’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

Washington shall bear his own costs on appeal.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.