alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 10, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 136220 Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 136220 

 COA: 274237 

Berrien CC: 06-403716-FH 

EDDIE JOE ANDERSON IV,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 21, 2008 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

d0903 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

September 10, 2008 

 Clerk
# C_2008209EN.01006602.xml

| 15.8.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 209/66 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/66

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 4 July 2008 — Grammatikopoulos v OHIM — National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences (GRAMMY)

(Case T-20/06) (1)

1

(2008/C 209/117)

Language of the case: English

Language of the case: English

The President of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 131, 3.6.2006.

1

---
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 40465

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

JEFFREY DAVID BELANGER,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2013 Unpublished Opinion No. 632

Filed: August 20, 2013

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED 

OPINION AND SHALL NOT 

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, State of Idaho, 

Bonneville County. Hon. Jon J. Shindurling, District Judge. 

Order denying I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of sentence, affirmed.

Stephen D. Thompson, Ketchum, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney 

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before LANSING, Judge; GRATTON, Judge;

and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Jeffrey David Belanger pled guilty to burglary. Idaho Code § 18-1401. The district court 

sentenced Belanger to a unified sentence of five years with two years determinate and retained 

jurisdiction. Following the period of retained jurisdiction, the district court placed Belanger on 

probation. After Belanger twice admitted to violating the terms of his probation, the district 

court revoked probation and executed the sentence. Belanger filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 

motion, which the district court denied. Belanger appeals asserting that the district court abused 

its discretion by denying his Rule 35 motion.

1

 

1 Belanger’s notice of appeal also included the district court’s order revoking probation and 

executing the original sentence as an issue on appeal. Belanger has withdrawn that issue.
2

A motion for reduction of sentence under I.C.R. 35 is essentially a plea for leniency, 

addressed to the sound discretion of the court. State v. Knighton, 143 Idaho 318, 319, 144 P.3d 

23, 24 (2006); State v. Allbee, 115 Idaho 845, 846, 771 P.2d 66, 67 (Ct. App. 1989). In 

presenting a Rule 35 motion, the defendant must show that the sentence is excessive in light of 

new or additional information subsequently provided to the district court in support of the 

motion. State v. Huffman, 144 Idaho 201, 203, 159 P.3d 838, 840 (2007). An appeal from the 

denial of a Rule 35 motion cannot be used as a vehicle to review the underlying sentence absent 

the presentation of new information. Id. Because no new or additional information in support of 

Belanger’s Rule 35 motion was presented, the district court did not abuse its discretion. For the 

foregoing reasons, the district court’s order denying Belanger’s Rule 35 motion is affirmed.
# C_2009019EN.01000302.xml

| 24.1.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 19/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.1.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 19/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-247/07) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 2003/35/EC - Drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment - Public participation - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

(2009/C 19/05)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Konstantinidis and D. Lawunmi, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: V. Jackson, Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment and amending with regard to public participation and access to justice Council Directives 85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 156, p. 17)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment and amending with regard to public participation and access to justice Council Directives 85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment and amending with regard to public participation and access to justice Council Directives 85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

| 2. | Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 170, 21.7.2007.

1

---
Exhibit 10.11


 


COMPENSATION AGREEMENT


 


This
COMPENSATION AGREEMENT (the “Compensation Agreement”) is entered into as of December 3,
2010, by and between Precision Optics, Inc., a Massachusetts corporation
(the “Company”) and Richard E. Forkey, an individual residing in Massachusetts
(“Employee”).


 


WHEREAS, the Company owes Employee $474,646, representing all
deferred salary due to Employee as of the date of this Compensation Agreement (the
“Deferred Salary”);


 


WHEREAS, the Company and Employee have agreed to pay
Deferred Salary due to Employee via the issuance of common stock of the
Company; and


 


WHEREAS, all references to shares of the Company’s common
stock give effect to a 1 for 25 reverse stock split, effective December 11,
2008 (the “Reverse Split”).


 


NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the
undertakings set forth herein, and intending to be fully bound hereby, the
parties agree:


 


1.                                       Employee will
forgive the Deferred Salary owed to him by the Company, and in return, Company
will issue Employee 172,599 shares of common stock of the Company (the “Shares”).


 


2.                                       The Shares will
be issued as registered common stock within 5 business days following the
filling of a Registration Statement on Form S-8 with the Securities and
Exchange Commission, however if the Form S-8 is not filed within six
months of this agreement, the Shares will be issued as restricted common stock.


 


3.                                       The shares
shall vest as follows: one eighth (1/8th) of the Shares shall vest on January 1, 2012,
and one eighth (1/8th) each quarter
thereafter on the first day of each quarter, commencing on April 1, 2012,
until the Shares are fully vested.


 


4.                                       This
Compensation Agreement sets forth the entire agreement of the parties relating
to the subject matter hereof and supersedes any other agreement verbal or
written.


 


5.                                       This
Compensation Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with
the laws of the State of Massachusetts, without regard to conflicts of laws
principles that would result in the application of the substantive law of
another jurisdiction. This Compensation Agreement may not be amended or
modified except by an instrument in writing signed by each party.


 


The
parties agree this compensation agreement may be delivered and/or returned by
telephone facsimile in one or more counterpart copies, and the parties may rely
upon the signatures hereto whether in original or facsimile copy.


 


Dated:
December 3, 2010


 


 


AGREED
AND ACCEPTED


 


By:
 Employee


 


	
  /s/Richard
  E. Forkey

  	
   

  
	
  Name:
   Richard E. Forkey

  



 


 


By:
 Precision Optics, Inc. and duly authorized to sign:


 


	
  By:

  	
  /s/Don
  Major

  	
   

  
	
  Name:
   Don Major

  
	
  Title:
   Director
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 1 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, 2 Plaintiff-Appellee, 3
v. NO. A-1-CA-36551 4 DAMIAN ARENAS, 5 Defendant-Appellant. 6
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SAN JUAN COUNTY 7 Karen L. Townsend, District Judge 8 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General 9 Santa Fe, NM 10 for Appellee 11 Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender 12 Santa Fe, NM 13 Steven J. Forsberg, Assistant Appellate Defender 14 Albuquerque, NM 15 for Appellant 16 MEMORANDUM OPINION 17 VIGIL, Judge. 18 {1} Defendant appeals from his conviction for felony DWI, entered pursuant to a 192 conditional plea, wherein he reserved the right to appeal the district court’s denial of 1 his motion to dismiss on speedy trial grounds . This Court issued a calendar notice 2 proposing to affirm relying, in part, on State v. Hill , 2005-NMCA-143, ¶ 12, 138 N.M. 3 693, 125 P.2d 1175. Defendant has filed a memorandum in opposition requesting that 4 this Court revisit our holding in Hill . However, given that our holding in Hill was 5 premised on binding New MexicoSupreme Court precedent, wedecline to revisit that 6 holding. As a result, we conc lude that Defendant has not demonstrated a speedy trial 7 violation. Accordingly, we affirm. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9

_________________________________ 10 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge 11
WE CONCUR: 12

___________________________ 13 JULIE J. VARGAS, Judge 14

___________________________ 15 STEPHEN G. FRENCH, Judge 16
##### 



Exhibit 32-2

Certification by the Chief Executive
Officer

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/A for the fiscal year ended January 26, 2004,
of CKE Restaurants, Inc. (the Company) as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Theodore Abajian, Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 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 (15 U.S.C. Section 78m(a) or
    Section 780(d)); and
|
| | 2. The information contained in the Report
    fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
    condition and results of operations of the Company.                  

In witness whereof, the undersigned has executed
and delivered this certificate as of the date set forth opposite
his signature below.



| |     |                     
| | --- | --------------------
| | By: | /s/ THEODORE ABAJIAN

| |  |                        
| |  | -----------------------
| | 
| |  | Theodore Abajian       
| |  | Chief Financial Officer

Date: December 17, 2004
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .



EXHIBIT II



                      UNIVERSAL AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRIES, INC.
                        COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE






<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                     Three Months Ended June 30,            Six Months Ended June 30,
                                                     -----------------------------      -----------------------------
                                                        2003                2002             2003              2002
                                                        ----                ----             ----              ----
<S>                                                   <C>              <C>              <C>               <C>
Earnings (Loss) per share:

BASIC NET INCOME (LOSS) PER COMMON SHARE
Numerator:
       Income (Loss) from continuing operations       $     15,083     $    517,225     $   (959,387)     $    669,136

Denominator:
       Weighted average common shares outstanding        8,224,949        8,185,921        8,224,949         8,170,955
       Effect of dilutive securities
             Conversion of preferred stock               3,014,380        3,014,380        3,014,380         3,014,380
              Common stock equivalents from
               warrants and options                        964,962                -          964,962                 -
                                                      ------------     ------------     ------------      ------------
Denominator for diluted earnings per common share       12,204,291       11,200,301       12,204,291        11,185,335
                                                      ============     ============     ============      ============

       Basic net income (loss) per common share       $       0.00     $       0.06     $      (0.12)     $       0.08
       Diluted net income (loss) per common share     $       0.00     $       0.05     $      (0.08)     $       0.06
</TABLE>
Freeman HANKINS v. Freddrick HUBBARD.

No. 523P06-4.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 24, 2008.

Freeman Hankins, Pro Se, for Hankins.

Robert Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the application filed by Defendant on the 11th day of December 2007 in this matter for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Brunswick County:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 24th day of January 2008."
<PAGE>   1

EXHIBIT II

                      UNIVERSAL AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRIES, INC.
                        COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                       Three Months Ended March 31,
                                                                                     --------------------------------
                                                                                           2001            2000
                                                                                     ---------------    -------------
<S>                                                                                  <C>                <C>
BASIC NET INCOME (LOSS) PER COMMON SHARE
Net Income (Loss)                                                                    $   (1,084,927)    $     57,010
                                                                                     ==============     ============



Weighted average Common Shares outstanding                                                7,295,402        6,839,310
                                                                                     ==============     ============

Basic Net Income (Loss) Per Common Share                                             $        (0.15)           $0.01
                                                                                     ==============     ============


DILUTED NET INCOME (LOSS) PER COMMON SHARE
Net Income (Loss)                                                                    $   (1,084,927)    $     57,010
                                                                                     ==============     ============

Weighted average Common Shares outstanding                                                7,295,402        6,839,310
Options and warrants assumed to be Common Stock
        equivalents using Treasury Stock Method                                                   0        1,172,035
                                                                                     --------------     ------------

Weighted average common shares outstanding, as
        adjusted                                                                          7,295,402        8,011,345
                                                                                     ==============     ============

Diluted Net Income (Loss) per Common Share                                           $        (0.15)    $       0.01
                                                                                     ==============     ============
</TABLE>








                                       11
NO. 07-08-0189-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL A

AUGUST 26, 2008

______________________________

BERGMAN OIL & GAS, INC. AND

PETCO PETROLEUM CORPORATION, APPELLANTS

V.

CURTIS STEAM SERVICE, INC. AND CURTIS WELL SERVICE, APPELLEES

_________________________________

FROM THE 223RD DISTRICT COURT OF GRAY COUNTY;

NO. 32,111; HONORABLE LEE WATERS, JUDGE

_______________________________

Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

ON MOTION TO DISMISS

Appellants, Bergman Oil & Gas, Inc. and Petco Petroleum Corporation, perfected

an appeal from the trial court’s judgment. Appellants have now filed a motion to dismiss

their appeal. Finding the motion complies with the requirements of Texas Rule of

Appellate Procedure 42.1(a), we dismiss the appeal. Further, the court will tax costs

against appellants. TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(d).
2

Having disposed of this appeal at the appellants’ request, we will not entertain a

motion for rehearing and our mandate shall issue forthwith.

Mackey K. Hancock

 Justice
1433.

#### TRACY & COMPANY *v.*HARRIS.

A person wlio can read, but wlio nevertheless, through inexcusable neglect, signs a written contract without reading it, is held to its terms, though the taker has made false statements as to its contents. This rule applies to a married woman, where the person with whom she is dealing stands in no confidential relation to her.

Affidavit of illegality, from city court of Sylvester — Judge Park. September 30, 1908.

Submitted December 9,

Decided December 23, 1908.

*Claude Payton,*for plaintiff.

*J. J. Forehand, M. Tison, J. H. Tipton,*for defendant.

Powell, J.

The defense to the mortgage foreclosure was that the defendant had been induced to sign the mortgage through fraud. She showed that she was a married woman, and that the plaintiffs’ agent, in company with her uncle-in-law, came to her home in her husband’s absence and asked her to sign a paper, stating that it was a draft for $50 to cover future advances to be made her by the store at which she was trading. She objected to signing in her husband’s absence. The agent said he could not.wait long enough to see her husband, as he was under the necessity of catching the train. The uncle said it would be all right for her to sign the paper, and she signed it without reading it. It turned out to be a mortgage for something over $300, for a past indebtedness which she was owing the plaintiffs. The uncle was not employed by the plaintiffs. This states the defendant’s case in its strongest light, and omits very strong evidence tending to negative her contention. But even thus stated, the tplea of fraud was not made out. It. *393merely presents one of those cases in which-the law looks to the maker’s own inexcusable negligence, and not to the payee’s untruthful representations, as the controlling reason why the maker signed -a paper which she did not intend to sign. The courts do not relieve in such cases. *Branan*v. *Warfield,*3 *Ga. App.*586 (60 S. E. 325); *Williams*v. *Moore-Gaunt Co.,*3 *Ga. App.*761 (60 S. E. 372); *Boswell*v. *Johnson,*ante, 251 (62 S. E. 1003); *Bostwick*v. *Duncan,*60 Ga. 384; *Jossey*v. *Ry. Co.,*109 *Ga.*446 (34 S. E. 664); *Walton Guano Co.*v. *Copelan,*112 *Ga.*319 (37 S. E. 411, 52 L. R. A. 268), and cit.; *Maxwell*v. *Willingham,*101 *Ga.*55 (28 S. E. 672). The fact that the defendant is a woman makes no difference. Even the married women of this State are presumed by law to have sense enough to attend to their own business, except in matters of suretyship and the debts of their husbands.

*Judgment reversed.*
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

Solely for the purposes of complying
with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, each of the undersigned, the President and Chief Executive
Officer and the Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, respectively, of
LaCrosse Footwear, Inc. (the Company), hereby certifies, based on his
knowledge, that the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December
31, 2003 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company.

/s/ Joseph P. SchneiderJoseph
P. SchneiderMarch 30, 2004

/s/ David P. CarlsonDavid
P. CarlsonMarch 30, 2004