alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
DISMISS and Opinion Filed July 2, 2021 

# S

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-21-00142-CV RODDRICK SMITH, Appellant V. ANDREW PEPPER, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC-20-05325-D MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Burns, Jus tice Molberg, and Justice Smith Opinion by Chief Justice Burns The filing fee and docketing statement in th is appeal are past due. By postcard dated March 4, 2021, we notif ied appellant the $205 filing f ee was due. We directed appellant to remit the filing fee within ten days and expressl y cautioned appellant that failure to do so would result in dismi ssal of the appeal. Also by postcard dated March 4, 2021, we notif ied appellant the docketing stat ement had not been filed in this case. 1 We directed appellant to file the docketing statement within ten days. We cautioned appellant that failure to do so might result in dismissal of this appeal.

1 Both the filing fee notice and the docketing st atement notice were returned to the Court as undeliverable. The clerk’s office attempted to c ontact appellant by telephone, but was unsuccessful.–2– To date, appellant has not paid the filin g fee, filed the docketing statement, or otherwise corresponded with the Court re garding the status of this appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 5; 42.3(b)(c).

210142F.P05 / Robert D. Burns, III / ROBERT D. BURNS, III CHIEF JUSTICE–3– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT RODDRICK SMITH, Appellant

No. 05-21-00142-CV V. ANDREW PEPPER, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC-20-05325- D. Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Burns. Justices Molberg and Smith participating. In accordance with this Court’s opi nion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED

. Judgment entered July 2, 2021
Edward McCRAE v. STATE of North Carolina.

No. 447P02-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 2, 2004.

Edward McCrae, Pro Se.

*277William P. Hart, Special Deputy Attorney General, Thomas J. Keith, District Attorney, for State of NC.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 1st day of November 2004 by Plaintiff in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> "Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 2nd day of December 2004."
Exhibit 10.1 Sixth Amendment to 401k Savings Plan



EXHIBIT 10.1

 






 

SIXTH
AMENDMENT TO THE

 

FROZEN
FOOD EXPRESS INDUSTRIES, INC. 401(k)
SAVINGS PLAN

 

This
Amendment is adopted by FROZEN
FOOD EXPRESS INDUSTRIES, INC. (the
“Company”), a Texas corporation, having its principal office in Dallas,
Texas.

 

R
e c i t a l s:

 

WHEREAS, the
Company has previously established the Frozen Food Express Industries,
Inc. 401(k)
Savings Plan, as amended and restated, effective January 1, 2001 (the “Plan”),
for the benefit of those employees who qualify thereunder and for their
beneficiaries; and

 

WHEREAS, the
Company desires to amend the Plan to comply
with the regulations governing new Code Section 401(a)(31)(B), as set forth in
Notice 2005-5, by amending Plan Section 11.1(f) to incorporate a good faith
model amendment that reflects the automatic rollover requirements for
involuntary distributions occurring on and after March 28, 2005;

 

NOW,
THEREFORE,
pursuant to Section 15.1 of the Plan, Section 11.1(f) of the Plan is amended and
restated in its entirety to read as follows, effective March 28,
2005:

 


	1.  	
      Plan
      Section 11.1(f) shall be amended to include the underlined language below
      so that it shall be and read as follows:




(f)Notwithstanding
anything to the contrary herein contained, a Participant's benefits will in all
events be paid in a lump sum as soon as practicable following the end of the
Plan Year in which such Participant terminates employment if the total value of
his vested interest in all Accounts is less than or equals $5,000. Unless
affirmatively elected otherwise, such distribution shall be made in cash and in
whole shares of Company Stock for all ESOP Accounts and any other account
balances invested in the Company Stock Funds. Effective
for payments to terminated Participants occurring on or after March 28, 2005, in
the event of an involuntary distribution greater than $1,000 in accordance with
this Section 11.1(f), if the Participant does not elect to have such
distribution paid directly to an eligible retirement plan specified by the
Participant in a direct rollover or to receive the distribution directly in
accordance with Section 11.1, then the Committee will pay the distribution in a
direct rollover to an individual retirement plan designated by the
Committee.

 

IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, FROZEN
FOOD EXPRESS INDUSTRIES, INC. has
caused this Sixth Amendment to be executed and effective as of March 28, 2005,
by the undersigned duly appointed and authorized officer.

FROZEN
FOOD EXPRESS INDUSTRIES, INC.

 

By: /s/ Stoney M. Stubbs, Jr.

Name: STONEY M. STUBBS, JR.

Title:  Chairman of the
Board
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 of Big Dog Holdings, Inc. and subsidiaries
(the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), we,
Andrew D. Feshbach, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and
Roberta J. Morris, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to s.s. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that to the best of our knowledge:





(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.








/s/ANDREW
      D. FESHBACH
            
            /s/ROBERTA
      J. MORRISAndrew
      D. Feshbach
            
            Roberta
      J. MorrisPresident
      and Chief Executive Officer
            
            Chief
      Financial OfficerMarch
      28, 2008
            
            March
      28, 2008
STATE v. AGNEW.

No. COA05-1078.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed June 20, 2006.

Certification Date July 10, 2006.

Appeal from Pitt (03CRS54863).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
Exhibit








Exhibit 10.2
2019 Target Bonus Program
On June 19, 2019, the Compensation Committee of the Board (the “Compensation Committee”) approved a 2019 incentive bonus program (the “2019 Bonus Program”) for the Company’s executive officers and other employees.  The Compensation Committee structured target bonuses for the fiscal year 2019 so that payouts would be determined based in part on achievement against corporate objectives, including: 
·    Non-GAAP net income from operations for 2019; 
·    Free cash flow for 2019; and 
·    Completion of research and development product milestones in 2019.
For target bonuses for the fiscal year 2019, the Compensation Committee established performance goals for each of the above metrics that are aligned with corporate objectives.  While these various performance goals were selected, they are merely non-binding guidelines to be used as one factor in determining the actual bonuses earned. 
The 2019 performance goals approved by the Compensation Committee take into account the anticipated impact on the Company’s business for the remainder of 2019 arising from Huawei Technologies and certain affiliates being placed on the “Entity List”. 
It is expected that, in the first quarter of 2020, the Compensation Committee will review the Company’s fiscal year 2019 corporate performance against each of the corporate goals and other aspects of corporate and individual performance to determine any actual bonus awards for performance related to fiscal year 2019.
Oversimplifications and Confusion Page 4

the Gulf over similar time periods during residence on the shelf, particularly in oxygen-
limited sediments.

Several lines of evidence indicate that the fraction of the organic carbon loading that is
labile or oxidizable is substantially less than 35%. Average concentrations of total
organic carbon (dissolved and particulate) in the lower river at St. Francisville averaged
6.38 mg L”' during 1996-98°, while the mean 5-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD)
over the same period was 1.58 mg L!. It would require complete oxidation of 9% of that
organic carbon pool to meet that oxygen demand if the only substance oxidized was
reduced carbon (nitrite, ammonia and other oxygen demanding materials also contribute
to BOD).

In addition, the longitudinal distribution of dissolved organic carbon in the Mississippi
River system strongly suggests that the organic carbon contained in the lower river is a
very refractory residual from the microbial degradation that takes place along the long

River). DOC concentrations
remained relatively constant
downstream, with average
concentrations dropping only to
3.7 mg L” over the remaining
1,500 km. After the confluence of the Arkansas, the last major tributary to join the
Mississippi, the decline in DOC concentrations suggested that less than 7% of the DOC
was degradable over the last 800 km of transit. It is reasonable to assume that the
processes that degrade the DOC also act on the POC during transit down the river.

® ; i . ; ; course to the sea. DOC
fal concentrations averaged about
soeeo ll 10 mg L” at Minneapolis/St.
Dee Re coon Paul (nearly 3,000 km upriver
USGS Circular 1133 from the Gulf), but declined to
zi 4.2 mg L” at a point 1,500 km
me upriver from the Gulf (just
. below the entry of the Ohio
8

All of this indicates that the organic carbon discharged into the Gulf is predominantly
refractory—the recalcitrant remains from hundreds of years of soil processing and a
3,000 km long secondary treatment system—and that the proportion of the residual that
could be further degraded over time scales of weeks to months is less than 10%.
Although there are other suggestions® that a greater percentage (up to 50%) of the
particulate organic carbon discharged by large rivers such as the Mississippi cannot be
accounted for in the sediments in depositional areas, this does not necessarily mean that
that “missing carbon” contributes to shelf metabolism. It could be lost due to desorption
and transported away as dissolved organic carbon or other mechanisms.

* USGS NASQAN data.

° Keil, R.G. et al. 1997. Loss of organic matter from riverine particle in deltas. Geochemica
Cosmochemica Acta 61: 1507-1511.
Exhibit 32.1



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 Quarterly Report of Morris Publishing Group, LLC and Morris Publishing Finance Co. (the Registrants) on Form 10-Q for the period ended
June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), William S. Morris IV, Chief Executive Officer, and Steve K. Stone, Chief Financial Officer of the both Registrants, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 Registrants.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                |  |  |  |     |  |                          |  |                                             
|--------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | ------------------------ |  | --------------------------------------------
|August 11, 2004 |  |  |  | BY: |  | /s/ WILLIAM S. MORRIS IV
|                |  |  |  |     |  |                          |  | William S. Morris IV Chief Executive Officer
|                |  |  | 
|                |  |  |  | BY: |  | /s/ STEVE K. STONE      
|                |  |  |  |     |  |                          |  | Steve K. Stone Chief Financial Officer
SCWC-13-0002957
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I

STATE OF HAWAI # I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs. LORI LEE TURPING, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

(CAAP-13-0002957; 1DTA-13-00639) ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)

Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant Lori Lee Turping’s Application for Writ of Certiorari filed on April 16, 2015, is hereby rejected.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, May 20, 2015. Craig W. Jerome for petitioner Brian R. Vincent for respondent /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Richard W. Pollack /s/ Michael D. Wilson Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-13-0002957 20-MAY-2015 01:29 PM
STATE v. VAREEN.

No. COA05-649.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed February 21, 2006.

Certification Date March 13, 2006.

Appeal from Durham (96CRS30678).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
Exhibit 32.1
                                CERTIFICATIONS OF
                      CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND TREASURER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                    SECTION 906 OF SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


         In connection with the annual report on Form 10-K of Capital Beverage
Corporation (the " Company") for the year ended December 31, 2004 (the "
Report"), I, Carmine N. Stella, hereby certify in my capacity as Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my
knowledge and belief:

         1.       The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13
(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

         2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.



Dated:  April 15, 2005              By:/s/ Carmine N. Stella
                                    -----------------------------------
                                            Name: Carmine N. Stella
                                            Title: Chief Executive Officer


         In connection with the annual report on Form 10-K of Capital Beverage
Corporation (the " Company") for the year ended December 31, 2004 (the "
Report"), I, Carol Russell, hereby certify in my capacity as Treasurer of the
Company, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge and belief:

         1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

         2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.



Dated:  April 15, 2005              By:/s/ Carol Russell
                                    --------------------------
                                            Name:  Carol Russell
                                            Title: Treasurer
exv10w6



 





Exhibit 10.6




Allan P. Merrill

2005 Executive Bonus Plan



For 2005, you will be eligible to receive a performance bonus based upon achievement of performance
objectives. Your bonus may be up to the following amounts:



Sixty Percent (60%) of your 2005 bonus award will be based on Corporate Financial Performance (as
outlined below). Forty Percent (40%) of your 2005 bonus award will be based on Individual
Performance Objectives (as outlined below). Your Target Bonus for 2005 is $325,000. Your Target
Bonus is your expected bonus amount assuming successful achievement of all of your performance
objectives. If you significantly exceed your performance objectives, you may receive a bonus in
excess of your Target Bonus, up to a maximum of 200% of your Target Bonus.




	 	 	 
	At Threshold Performance Level:

	 	0% of Target Bonus
	 
	 	 
	At Target Performance Level:

	 	100% of Target Bonus (60% for Corporate
Financial Performance; 40% for Individual
Performance)
	 
	 	 
	At Growth Performance Level:

	 	200% of Target Bonus (120% for Corporate
Financial Performance; 80% for Individual
Performance)





Achievement in between levels will be calculated according to a bonus formula described below.



Corporate Financial Performance Element



The Corporate Financial Performance element will be determined based on a financial matrix that
includes Cash Operating Income and Revenue components. For purposes of this Bonus Plan, “Cash
Operating Income” means Operating Income less non-cash charges and extraordinary, non-recurring
items, calculated before payment of executive bonuses. A copy of the matrix for your 2005 bonus,
as approved by the Compensation Committee, is being provided to you in connection with this Bonus
Plan.



Individual Performance Objectives



Your maximum potential bonus award for the Individual Performance element is 80% of your Target
Bonus (for extraordinary performance). Your expected bonus for the Individual Performance Element
is 40% of your Target Bonus (at acceptable satisfaction of your objectives). A copy of your
individual performance objectives is being provided to you in connection with this Bonus Plan.




41
Exhibit 10.18

CERTIFICATE OF MERGEROF GREENSTEAM ACQUISITION COMPANY INC.(a Delaware corporation)

with and into

GREENSTEAM DEVELOPMENT INC.(a Delaware corporation)

Greensteam Development Inc., a Delaware corporation, for the purpose of merging Greensteam Acquisition Company Inc., a Delaware corporation, with and into itself, hereby certifies as follows:

1.      The name and state of domicile of each of the constituent corporation are:

2.      An agreement of merger has been approved, adopted, certified, executed and acknowledged by each of the constituent Corporations in accordance with Subsection 251(c) of the Delaware General Corporation Law.

3.      The name of the surviving corporation is Greensteam Development Inc.

4.      The certificate of incorporation of Greensteam Development Inc. shall be the certificate of incorporation of the surviving corporation.

5.      The executed agreement of merger is on file at the principal place of business of the surviving corporation, 789 West Pender Street, Suite 1010, Vancouver, BC Canada VGC 1H2.

6.      A copy of the agreement of merger will be furnished by the surviving corporation, on request and without cost, to any stockholder of either constituent corporation.









---

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Certificate of Merger has been duly executed as of this 23rdday of February, 2007, and is being filed by Greensteam Development Inc., as the surviving corporation.



GREENSTEAM DEVELOPMENT INC.By:
     J. DOUGLAS FRATERJ. Douglas Frater, President






















---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM (A) AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH (B)
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                       2,890,347
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  434,693
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,325,040
<PP&E>                                      29,105,873
<DEPRECIATION>                               (164,552)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              32,659,591
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          296,410
<BONDS>                                      6,375,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  25,988,181
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                32,659,591
<SALES>                                      1,791,745
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,046,453
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  212,101
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              23,603
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,810,749
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,810,749
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,810,749
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7584

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus LAZARO TAPIA-SANTANA, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Fayetteville. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (CR-93-62-BR, CA-00-864-BR) Submitted: December 20, 2001 Decided: January 9, 2002 Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lazaro Tapia-Santana, Appellant Pro Se. Jane H. Jolly, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Lazaro Tapia-Santana seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001) and his motion to alter or amend judgment. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s orders and find noreversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Tapia-Santana , Nos. CR-93-62-BR; CA-00- 864-BR (E.D.N.C. Jan. 18, 2001; Feb. 5, 2001). We dispense withoral 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