alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF BRAD D. GREENSPAN FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS § § No. 102, 2015 § §

Submitted: March 23, 2015 Decided: April 13 , 2015

Before STRINE , Chief Justice ; HOLLAND , and VAUGHN , Justices.

O R D E R

This 13th day of April 2015 , upon consideration of the petition of Brad Greenspan for a writ of mandamus, it appears to the Court that: (1) The p etitioner , Brad Greenspan , seek s to invoke the original jurisdiction of this Court under Supreme Court Rule 43 . He requests that

this Court issue a writ of mandamus directing a Master of the Court of Chancery to : (i) grant his “Motion to Expedite Summary Judgment;” (ii) declare that he is immediately entitled to advancement of his legal fees; (iii) grant his “Motion Rule 54(b) or Rule 55(b);” (iv) grant his “Motion for Partial Summary Judgment;” (v) order a hearing on his “Motion 70b;” (vi) order an independent accounting of legal fees paid by defendants to the Master’s former employer; (vii) transfer his case to Vice Chancellor Laster; (viii) disqualify the law firm of Richards Layton & Finger from appearing2

his case; (ix) join certain people as codefendants; and (x) set a new hearing date on his “Motion to Expedite Summary Judgment.” (2 ) Defendants below, News Corporation and Intermix Media LLC, as well as defendants, Sony Entertainment, Inc., Sony Music Holdings, Inc., and 550 Digital Media Ventures, Inc., have filed motions seeking to dismiss Greenspan’s writ of mandamus. After carefu l consideration of the parties’ respective positions, w e find that Greenspan ’s petition manifestly fails to invoke this Court’s original jurisdiction to issue an extraordinary writ

. Accordingly, his petition must be dismissed. ( 3 ) A writ of mandamus is de signed to compel a lower court to perform a duty if it is shown that: the complainant has a clear right to the performance of the duty; that no other adequate remedy is available; and that the trial court has arbitrarily failed or refused to perform its d uty. 1 A writ of mandamus will not be issued “to compel a trial court to perform a particular judicial function, to decide a matter in a particular way, or to dictate the

control of its docket.” 2 A writ of mandamus is not warranted under the

present circumstances because the pending motions below are within the

discretion of the Master in Chancery

. 3 T his Court will not compel the Court

1 In re Bordley , 545 A.2d 619, 620 (Del. 1988).

2 Id.

3 Id.3

of Chancery to rule in Greenspan ’s favor on the substantive issues below.

These are matters Greenspan may raise in any appeal from a final order issued by the Court of Chancery in the proceedings below. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the petition for the issuance of an extraordinary writ of mandamus is D ISMISSED

. BY THE COURT: /s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr. Chief Ju stice
----

(2004/C 33 E/168)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1771/03

by Jean-Pierre Bébéar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 May 2003)

Subject:   IOPC Fund — marine pollution

The derisory offer of compensation issued by the IOPC Fund following the ‘Prestige’ disaster has led me, and many others, to question whether this compensation fund is of any real use.

The Commission has expressed the wish to remedy the shortcomings of the IOPC Fund by setting up a EUR 1 billion compensation fund for the benefit of the various victims affected when oil tankers go down.

If it proves impossible to set up this fund at international level, does the Commission intend to propose a European organisation modelled on the efforts the United States has already made to protect its coastline?

In that event, what arrangements are envisaged, what funding is proposed, what timetable will be laid down and what will be the responsibilities of the Member States in relation to setting up this fund and ensuring its effective operation?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-1769/03 and P-1771/03

given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(20 June 2003)

The Commission shares the concerns of the Honourable Member about the need to ensure that sufficient compensation is available for all victims of oil pollution incidents.

Therefore, the Commission proposed on 6 December 2000 to establish the COPE Fund, which would raise the overall maximum compensation to EUR 1 billion instead of the current international limit of around EUR 185 million. Such a measure would ensure that all victims who have a legitimate claim for compensation will be fully compensated in case of an oil spill in Union waters and would also serve to speed up the compensation of victims.

The Council decided not to proceed with the proposal, but instead to promote the establishment of a similar fund at international level. The Diplomatic Conference on the Supplementary Fund at the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) on 12-16 May 2003 adopted a new Protocol to the existing international oil pollution compensation regime. The new International Supplementary Fund increased the available compensation up to EUR 920 million, which is more than USD 1 000 million, available in the US Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. The Commission, therefore, welcomes the adoption of this new Protocol.

Now it has to be ensured that Member States live up to their commitment to bring this new fund into operation before the end of the year. Until all Member States, at least those with a coastline, are parties to the new Supplementary Fund, the Commission will not reconsider its proposal on the establishment of a COPE Fund at Union level.

----
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-14-00389-CV

T. WILLIAM MCINTYRE APPELLANT

V.

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL 

TRUST COMPANY, AS 

INDENTURE TRUSTEE FOR NEW 

CENTURY HOME EQUITY LOAN 

TRUST 2005-1, CARRINGTON 

MORTGAGE SERVICES, LLC,

CARRINGTON FORECLOSURE 

SERVICES, LLC F/K/A ATLANTIC & 

PACIFIC FORECLOSURE 

SERVICES, L.L.C, HOLLY 

CARTER, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS 

TRUSTEE, CHRISTOPHER K. 

BAXTER, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS 

ATTORNEY, MARINOSCI LAW 

GROUP, P.C., GARY MARINOSCI, 

INDIVIDUALLY AND AS 

ATTORNEY, TOM CROFT, PETER 

C. SMART, AND CRAIN, CATON & 

JAMES, P.C.

APPELLEES

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

FROM THE 158TH DISTRICT COURT OF DENTON COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NO. 2012-20446-158
2

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

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

On December 10, 2014, and December 30, 2014, we notified appellant in 

accordance with rule of appellate procedure 42.3(c) that we would dismiss this 

appeal unless the $195 filing fee was paid. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c). 

Appellant has not paid the $195 filing fee. See Tex. R. App. P. 5, 12.1(b).

Because appellant has failed to comply with a requirement of the rules of 

appellate procedure and the Texas Supreme Court’s order of August 16, 2013,

2

we dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c), 43.2(f).

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

See Tex. R. App. P. 43.4.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; DAUPHINOT and GARDNER, JJ.

DELIVERED: January 22, 2015

 1

See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

2

See Supreme Court of Tex., Fees Charged in the Supreme Court, in Civil 

Cases in the Courts of Appeals, and Before the Judicial Panel on Multi-district 

Litigation, Misc. Docket No. 13-9127 (Aug. 16, 2013) (listing fees in courts of 

appeals).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN T-NETIX, INC.'S QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE
THREE AND NINE MONTHS ENDED APRIL 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1998
<CASH>                                             637
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,209
<ALLOWANCES>                                       270
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                          50,096
<DEPRECIATION>                                  23,314
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  47,079
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            85
<OTHER-SE>                                      28,549
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    47,079
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                28,802
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   13,679
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                13,349
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 770
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,004
<INCOME-TAX>                                       401
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                603
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       603
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.07
        

</TABLE>
LAMAR OCI SOUTH v. STANLY COUNTY, et al.

No. 485A07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 11, 2008.

Robert C. Stephens, Mark R. Kutny, Charlotte, Joshua J. Morton, Jr., for Stanly County, et al.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 28th day of April 2008 by Petitioner to Amend Petitioner Appellant's New Brief:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference this the 11th day of June 2008."
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-02-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-03-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-02-2000
<CASH>                                         1136137
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   275655
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     111807
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               2007095
<PP&E>                                        18237494
<DEPRECIATION>                                 3370692
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                53495364
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         10703572
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    3331000
<COMMON>                                        246958
<OTHER-SE>                                    33679634
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  53495364
<SALES>                                       12166454
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              12166454
<CGS>                                          3144513
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 23063263
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               9944106
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             2357245
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (24248632)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (24248632)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (2.40)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.40)


</TABLE>
----

(2004/C 33 E/274)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2465/03

by Giuseppe Gargani (PPE-DE), Fiorella Ghilardotti (PSE) and Enrico Ferri (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(23 July 2003)

Subject:   Application by the Member States of Directive 2001/29 on copyright

What steps is the Commission taking to monitor and ascertain the correct transposition by the EU Member States of Directive 2001/29/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(4 September 2003)

Since the adoption of Directive 2001/29/EC on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (2) on 22 May 2001 and even prior to its entry into force upon publication on 22 June 2001, the Commission began a work program to assist Member States in timely and correct transposition. A series of four informal meetings with Member States was held at intervals beginning in May 2001, December 2001, June 2002 and finally in October 2002. In addition, the Commission undertook bilateral visits to the capitals to discuss transposition of the Directive with the competent authorities. The transposition of the Directive was also discussed at the first meeting of the Copyright Contact Committee on 10 March 2003, which was established by Article 12 of Directive 2001/29/EC and is composed of representatives of the competent authorities of Member States under the chairmanship of the Commission. Furthermore, the Commission wrote to all Member States reminding them of the great importance of a speedy transposition of the Directive because of its relevance to the Community's international obligations (the Directive is the means by which the Community and its Member States will implement the WIPO Copyright Treaty and the WIPO Performances and Phonogram Treaties, which were adopted on 20 December 1996 under the auspices of the World Intellectual Property Organisation — WIPO).

Directive 2001/29/EC was due to be transposed in Member States' laws by 22 December 2002. Denmark and Greece have met this deadline. Italy and Austria transposed the Directive in April and June 2003 respectively. The Commission has received official notification of the national instruments of transposition from those four Member States. Germany has adopted its transposition law in July 2003. It is expected that the other Member States will have transposed in the course of 2003. The Commission, fulfilling its role as guardian of the Treaties, is pursuing infringement proceedings against those Member States that have not yet notified transposition of the Directive.

----

(1)OJ L 167, 22.6.2001, p. 10.

(2)OJ L 167, 22.6.2001.

----
Employee Incentive Compensation Plan



 Exhibit 10.1 
 FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE 
 EIGHTH AMENDED AND RESTATED KENSEY NASH
CORPORATION 
 EMPLOYEE INCENTIVE COMPENSATION PLAN

WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of Kensey Nash Corporation (the “Board”) approved the Eighth Amended and Restated Kensey Nash
Corporation Employee Incentive Compensation Plan (the “Plan”) on October 20, 2010, subject to stockholder approval at its annual stockholder meeting on December 1, 2010; 

WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 12.1 of the Plan, the Board may amend the Plan at any time, subject to the requirements of such
Section 12.1 and provided that such an amendment may not impair a grantee’s award under the Plan without his or her consent; and 
 WHEREAS, the Board has determined to amend the provisions of the Plan applicable upon a Change in Control (as defined in the Plan); 

NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is amended as follows: 
 1. Section 11.2(b) of the Plan is hereby amended, effective as of December 1, 2010 and subject to stockholder approval of the Plan as amended by this First Amendment to read in its entirety
as follows: 
  

	 	“(b)	The approval by the stockholders of the Company of a reorganization, merger, consolidation, complete liquidation or dissolution of the Company, the sale or disposition
of all or substantially all of the assets of the Company or similar corporate transaction (in each case referred to in this Section 11.2 as a “Corporate Transaction”) or, if consummation of such Corporate Transaction is subject, at
the time of such approval by stockholders, to the consent of any government or governmental agency, the obtaining of such consent (either explicitly or implicitly); provided, however, that, with respect to (i) any Awards granted on or after the
Effective Date and (ii) Awards covering any of the additional 300,000 shares of Common Stock issuable under the Plan on and after the Effective Date, a Change in Control shall not be deemed to occur pursuant to this Section 11.2(b) unless
and until such Corporate Transaction is consummated; or” 

 2. Except as otherwise provided herein, the Plan shall remain
unchanged and in full force and effect as prior to this First Amendment. 

*        *        * 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board has caused this amendment to be executed this 18th day of November, 2010. 

 

			
	KENSEY NASH CORPORATION
		
	By:	 	         /s/ JOSEPH W.
KAUFMANN



  

			
	Name:	 	   Joseph W.
Kaufmann



  

			
	Title:	 	     President, CEO and Secretary




  
 5
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated financial statements of The Associated Group, Inc. as of and for
the three months ended March 31, 1998 included in Form 10-Q for the quarter
ending March 31, 1998 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                      JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                        MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                  639,200
<SECURITIES>                                  0<F1>
<RECEIVABLES>                             6,044
<ALLOWANCES>                              2,499
<INVENTORY>                               2,151
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                        686,780
<PP&E>                                  120,358
<DEPRECIATION>                           36,549
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                        1,960,289
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                   199,532
<BONDS>                                 559,726
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0
<PREFERRED>                                   0
<COMMON>                                  3,806
<OTHER-SE>                              723,563
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>          1,960,289
<SALES>                                     168
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          7,380
<CGS>                                        99
<TOTAL-COSTS>                            10,981
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          4,737
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            116
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       13,953
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         (22,465)
<INCOME-TAX>                             (2,281)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     (20,184)
<DISCONTINUED>                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0
<CHANGES>                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                            (20,184)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                              (.53)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 0
<FN>
<F1>Does not include $1,025,905 of noncurrent marketable equity securities and
$96,395 restricted cash and investments.
        


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-7649

ROBERT J. BEAN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

RONALD J. ANGELONE; FRED SHILLING, Director,

Health Services Virginia Department of

Corrections; UGWUALE NWAUCHE, Doctor; PAGE

TRUE, Warden, Red Onion State Prison; KATHLEEN

A. DEPONTE, Doctor, at St. Mary's Hospital,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District

Judge. (CA-02-1088-7)

Submitted: December 17, 2003 Decided: February 10, 2004

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert J. Bean, Appellant Pro Se. Pamela Anne Sargent, Assistant

Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia; Edward Joseph McNelis, III,

John David McChesney, RAWLS & MCNELIS, P.C., Richmond, Virginia;

Heather Helaine Polzin, FLIPPIN, DENSMORE, MORSE & JESSEE, Roanoke,

Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Robert J. Bean appeals the district court’s judgment

denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint alleging

deliberate indifference to his medical needs. We have reviewed the

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for

the reasons stated by the district court. See Bean v. Angelone,

No. CA-02-1088-7 (W.D. Va. Sept. 23, 2003). 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
D.E.F. OF HICKORY, LLC v. HONEYCUTT.

No. COA07-1493.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed February 17, 2009.

Certification Date March 9, 2009.

Appeal from Catawba (06CVS2612).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
**Exhibit 32.2**

** **

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of ERP Operating Limited Partnership (“ERPOP”)on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Donna Brandin,Chief Financial Officer of Equity Residential, general partner of ERPOP,certify, pursuant to 18.U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

(1)                                  TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

 

 
| /s/                     | Donna Brandin |   |   |
|-------------------------|---------------|--------|--------|
| Donna Brandin           |
| Chief Financial Officer |
| of Equity Residential   |
| August 7, 2006          |

 

----
STATE v. LUNDY.

No. COA08-799.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed January 20, 2009.

Certification Date February 9, 2009.

Appeal from Forsyth (07CRS56399).

Case reported without published opinion. Remanded for resentencing.
STATE v. EVANS.

No. COA07-1222.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed May 20, 2008.

Certification Date June 9, 2008.

Appeal from Forsyth (04CRS65000, 05CRS40548).

Cases reported without published opinion. No error.