alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
June 12, 2001


EXHIBIT 10.4



December 1, 2010



Arthur C. Graves

East Greenville, PA



Dear Art:

It is our pleasure to inform you that you will be a participant in the 2011 Knoll, Inc. Incentive Compensation Program. 

In these challenging times our objectives are simple and something that each of us can help contribute to:

Leverage our investments in sales, marketing and design initiatives as well as enhanced operational capabilities to drive top line growth and improved levels of profitability while continuing to make the right investments in products, service and technology to position Knoll for long term success as demand recovers. 

Our success in 2011 and beyond will be a direct result of your ability to help us accomplish these long term goals while meeting our short term 2011 operating profit plan. 

If you achieve your individual goals and Knoll makes its 2011 operating profit plan you can qualify for a total target incentive payment of $295,000.

This award is subject to our approval and that of the Knoll, Inc. Board of Directors (or appropriate committee of the Knoll, Inc. Board of Directors), which may exercise discretion in adjusting your award up or down based on factors the Board of Directors (or appropriate committee of the Knoll, Inc. Board of Directors) deems appropriate, including Knoll's performance relative to the industry, other macroeconomic factors and your individual performance.  You must be employed by Knoll on the date this award is distributed in order to receive this incentive.

We have great confidence in your ability to contribute to our success in 2011 and look forward to being able to present you with your award in early 2012. 

Thank you for all that you do for Knoll.

Sincerely,

/s/ Andrew B. Cogan/s/ Lynn M. Utter

Andrew B. CoganLynn M. Utter

CEOPresident and COO
EXHIBIT 99-2



CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL
REPORTS PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §1350



The undersigned
hereby certifies that he is the duly appointed and acting Chief Financial Officer of CKE Restaurants, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Company), and hereby further certifies as follows.



|1. |  | The periodic report containing financial statements to which this certificate is an exhibit fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
|-- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. |  | The information contained in the periodic report to which this certificate is an exhibit 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.



|Date: March 26, 2003 |  |  |  | /s/    DENNIS J.
LACEYDennis
J. Lacey Chief Financial Officer
|-------------------- |  |  |  | -------------------------------------------------------------
YOUNG v. BAILEY, et al.

No. 355PA14-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Sept. 4, 2015.

Harvey L. Kennedy, Winston-Salem, for Young, Terri.

Harold L. Kennedy, III, Winston-Salem, for Young, Terri.

Sean F. Perrin, Charlotte, for Bailey, Daniel, et al.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 2nd of September 2015 by Plaintiff:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 4th of September 2015."
1

COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

RUBEN ORTIZ,

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

 §

No. 08-07-00045-CR

Appeal from the

409th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 20060D03406)

O P I N I O N

This is an appeal from a jury conviction for the offense of family-violence assault, enhanced

to a felony offense by the allegation of a prior conviction for family-violence assault. At the

punishment stage of trial, Appellant pleaded true to an enhancement paragraph which alleged a prior

felony conviction for possession of a controlled substance. The jury assessed punishment at thirteen

years’ imprisonment. We affirm.

Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a brief in which she has concluded that the

appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the

record, demonstrating why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See High v.

State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex.

Crim. App. 1974); Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Gainous v. State, 436

S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). A copy of counsel’s brief and the appellate record were

delivered to Appellant, and Appellant was advised of his right to file a pro se brief. Appellant did
2

file a pro se brief, and the State has filed a reply brief.

The Court of Criminal Appeals directs that we not address the merits of issues raised in

Anders briefs or in pro se responses thereto. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2005). We may only determine (1) that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion

explaining that we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error; or (2) that arguable grounds

for appeal exist and remand the cause to the trial court, so that new counsel may be appointed to brief

the issues. Id.

We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief and agree that the appeal is wholly

frivolous and without merit. Further, we find nothing in the record that might arguably support the

appeal.

The judgment is affirmed.

KENNETH R. CARR, Justice

September 11, 2008

Before Chew, C.J., McClure, and Carr, JJ.

(Do Not Publish)
STATE of North Carolina v. Larry HILL, JR.

No. COA15-637.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Feb. 16, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Dismissed.
----

(2004/C 65 E/185)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2523/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(29 July 2003)

Subject:   Validity for other parts of the EU of the successful Flemish model for expanding public transport, winning new passengers and providing services on a sound financial basis

Source: OV Magazine (Netherlands), 10 July 2003

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(12 September 2003)

The Commission is keenly aware of the importance of high quality public transport services. In view of this it undertakes a number of initiatives in this field.

One of the most relevant activities has been its work on the proposal adopted in 2002 (1) on action by Member States concerning public service requirements and the award of public service contracts in passenger transport by rail, road and inland waterway. As recent court cases have shown, it is now more urgent than ever to make progress with this dossier.

There are a number of examples of successful growth of public transport use in the Union and the Commission welcomes the success that has been achieved by ‘De Lijn’.

Many factors can contribute to desirable developments in this field. Some are matters for the management of public transport operators, while others rely on an appropriate legislative framework. It is appropriate for local authorities to have sufficient freedom to address local issues and encourage public transport development, but they must of course respect the framework of Union rules.

The Commission welcomes also the specific measures for target groups (young people, elderly and people with disabilities).

The Commission is keen to promote examples of good practice in public transport. The European Local Transport Information Service (2) is a project which the Union has funded for sharing examples of good practice.

Another way that the Commission is supporting best practice is through its urban transport benchmarking exercise comprising a series of projects. The third project is starting now and the Commission is keen to encourage public authorities to participate.

----

(1)OJ C 151 E, 25.6.2002.

(2)  www.ELTIS.org

----
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 14

- 00435

- CR

Shawna Atchley v. The State of Texas

On Appeal from the 347th District Court of Nueces County , Texas Trial Cause No. 13

- CR

- 1689

- H

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal
DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion

. We further order this decision certified below for observance. September 11 , 2014
STATE v. Harry Sharod JAMES.

No. 514PA11-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 20, 2016.

Sandra Wallace-Smith, Assistant Attorney General, for State of N.C.

David W. Andrews, Assistant Appellate Defender, for James, Harry Sharod.

R. Andrew Murray, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 20th of May 2016 by Defendant for Temporary Stay:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of May 2016."
# CE2004070EN.01021701.xml

| 20.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 70/217 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 70/217

---

(2004/C 70 E/233)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3097/03

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(20 October 2003)

Subject:   Disclosure of resources for the EMU campaign

Subject:

It is highly likely that the ‘yes’ camp had greater resources at its disposal than the ‘no’ camp during the recently concluded EMU campaign in Sweden.

Does the Commission consider it would have been an advantage if the resources available to the two camps had been made public?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(21 November 2003)

(21 November 2003)

Given that the referendum held in Sweden on 14 September 2003 was an entirely domestic matter, the Commission does not have a view on whether any other resources made available to the respective campaigns should be made public or not.

The Commission has not made any financial resources available for information or communication on the euro in Sweden after the announcement of the referendum.

---
RECITALS
     1.
    
    The final two paragraphs of the Security Agreement are hereby amended to read as follows in
their entirety:Debtor warrants that the address of its chief executive office is 17634 NE Airport Way,
Portland OR 97230, or such other address of which the Debtor notifies the Bank from time to
time.Debtor warrants that the tangible Collateral (except goods in transit or in possession of
repairmen) is or will be located or domiciled at the following additional addresses: 12021
NE Airport Way, Suite B, Portland, OR 97220 (this location is in preparation); 18201 NE
Portal Way, Portland, OR 97230 (this location is in preparation); 12722 NE Airport Way,
Portland, OR 97230; 5352 Performance Way, Whitestown, IN 46075; and 17634 NE Airport Way,
Portland, OR 97230. Debtor sells inventory in the ordinary course of business to LaCrosse
Denmark, which stores it at Niels Ebbesens Vej 19 DK-1911 Frederiksberg, Denmark or at Scan
Global Logistics, True Mollevej 1,8381 Tilst, Denmark, or in transit, and which ships
inventory under customary sale and shipping terms to its customers, and to vendors as
samples, and which disposes of defective or out of date inventory in the ordinary course of
business.
  1




---



##### 



By:
    /s/ Joseph P. SchneiderJoseph P. SchneiderPresident/Chief Executive OfficerBy:
    /s/ David P. CarlsonDavid P. CarlsonExecutive Vice President/Chief Financial Officer/Secretary 
 By:
    /s/ James R. BednarkJames R. BednarkSenior Vice President 2
1560.

#### Hines *v.*The State.

Accusation of larceny, from city court of Sandersville — Judge' Jordan. November 27, 1908.

Submitted January 14,

Decided January 27, 1909.

Hines was convicted under an accusation charging him with the larceny of a set of single buggy harness, the property of G. H. Wood. At the trial Wood testified: “About the -5th day of September, this year, I lost a set of single buggy harness. Those harness were in my buggy house. . . The harness were -mine and •were taken from my buggy house in Washington, Georgia. . . I have never found these harness.” The witness further testified,, that the accused admitted that “he stole the harness, and said he-gave them to another boy, by the name of Bethea, to sell for him.”' The father of the accused told the witness that the accused had tlie harness. The remainder of the testimony related to the confession of the accused and the circumstances under which it was. made.

*Evans & Evans,*for plaintiff in error.

*J. E. Hyman, solicitor,*contra.

Russell, J.

The corpus delicti not being shown, the alleged confession (even if voluntarily made) was uncorroborated, and therefore was insufficient to authorize the conviction of the defendant.

*Judgment reversed.*
<PAGE>   1





EXHIBIT II

                     UNIVERSAL AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRIES, INC.
                       COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                                   (UNAUDITED)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                               Three Months Ended September 30  Nine Months Ended September 30
                                               -------------------------------  ------------------------------
                                                     1998            1997            1998          1997
                                                     ----            ----            ----          ----
BASIC NET INCOME (LOSS) PER COMMON SHARE

<S>                                               <C>            <C>            <C>           <C>         
Net income (loss)                                 $   (76,275)   $   (16,278)   $   315,396   $  (181,045)
                                                  ===========    ===========    ===========   ===========
Weighted average common shares outstanding          6,769,425      6,769,425      6,769,425     6,745,835
                                                  ===========    ===========    ===========   ===========
Basic net income (loss) per common share          $     (0.01)   $     (0.00)   $      0.05   $     (0.03)
                                                  ===========    ===========    ===========   ===========

DILUTED NET INCOME (LOSS) PER COMMON SHARE
Net income (loss)                                 $   (76,275)   $   (16,278)   $   315,396   $  (181,045)
                                                  ===========    ===========    ===========   ===========
Weighted average common shares outstanding          6,769,425      6,769,425      6,769,425     6,745,835

Options and warrants assumed to be common stock
        equivalents using treasury stock method             0              0          1,934             0
                                                  -----------    -----------    -----------   -----------
 Weighted average common shares outstanding, as
        adjusted                                    6,769,425      6,769,425      6,771,359     6,745,835
                                                  ===========    ===========    ===========   ===========
Diluted net income (loss) per common share        $     (0.01)   $     (0.00)   $      0.05   $     (0.03)
                                                  ===========    ===========    ===========   ===========
</TABLE>




                                       11
JONES v. FOOD LION.

No. COA08-451.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed December 16, 2008.

Certification Date January 5, 2009.

Appeal from NC Industrial Commission (I.C. NO. 545151).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
# C_2009090EN.01002301.xml

| 18.4.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 90/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.4.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 90/23

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 March 2009 — Borax Europe v Commission

(Case T-121/05) (1)

1

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents and sound recordings - Refusal of access - Exception relating to the protection of the privacy and integrity of the individual - Exception relating to the protection of the decision-making process)

2009/C 90/35

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Borax Europe Ltd (Guildford, United Kingdom) (represented by: D. Vandermeersch and K. Nordlander, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. Costa de Oliveira and I. Chatzigiannis, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision of 17 January 2005 of the Secretary-General of the Commission refusing access to certain documents and sound recordings in connection with the 30th adaptation to technical progress of Council Directive 67/548/EEC of 27 June 1967 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances (OJ, English Special Edition 1967(I), p. 234)

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of 17 January 2005 of the Secretary-General of the Commission refusing access to certain documents and sound recordings in connection with the 30th adaptation to technical progress of Council Directive 67/548/EEC of 27 June 1967 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of 17 January 2005 of the Secretary-General of the Commission refusing access to certain documents and sound recordings in connection with the 30th adaptation to technical progress of Council Directive 67/548/EEC of 27 June 1967 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances;

| 2. | Orders the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 143, 11.6.2005.

1

---
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

E L P ASO

RODERICK MORRISON

, )

) No. 08

- 1 3

- 00 319

- CR

Appellant, )

) Appeal from Criminal District Court No. 6

vs. )

) of Dallas County, Texas

THE STATE OF TEXAS, )

) (TC# F

- 11

- 56210

- X )

State. )

O R D E R

The reporter’s record in the above styled and numbered cause was originally d ue

No vember 18, 2013 . No reporter’s record having been filed the C ourt extending the due date

until December 8, 2013. As of this date

, the reporter’s record has not been filed.

It is therefore ORDERED that the trial judge conduct a hearing to determine whe ther

appellant has been deprived of a reporter’s record for any reason, including ineffective assistance

of counsel, and to make appropriate findings and recommendations, which may include

appointment of new counsel. The record of such hearing, including any orders and findings of

the trial judge, shall be certified and forwarded to this office on or before January 18, 201 4

.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 18 th day of December , 201 3

.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera , and Rodriguez , JJ.
# I25t-W
ELECTRONIC RECORD COA# 10-13-00163-CR 

### OFFENSE: Poss ofa Controlled Substance 

### Jamall Riddan Kennedyv. The Stateof STYLE: Texas COUNTY: McLennan TRIAL COURT: 54th District Court MOTION TRIAL COURTS: 2012-722-C2 FOR REHEARING IS: TRIAL COURTJUDGE: Hon. MattJohnson DATE: DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED JUDGE: Davis 

### DATE: August 14, 2014 JUSTICE: Davis PC S YES PUBLISH: YES DNP: YES 

### CLK RECORD: 6/21/2013 -1 volume SUPPCLKRECORD: 

### RPTRECORD: 8/14/2014 SUPP RPT RECORD: 

### STATE BR: 12/6/2013 SUPP BR: 

### APP BR: 10/18/2013 PRO SE BR:



### IN THE COURTOF CRIMINALAPPEALS ELECTRONIC RECORD 

# PEO SE

.Petition FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS: 

# DATE: /7^/ky/^/r JUDGE: fj4 UAStutrt— CCA# 

# iaS¥-/¥ Disposition: DATE: JUDGE: 

### SIGNED:. PUBLISH: PC: DNP:
MOTION FOR REHEARING IN MOTION FOR STAY OF MANDATE IS: CCA IS: JUDGE: ON ON JUDGE:
Walter STEVENS, Employee, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES COLD STORAGE, INC., Employer, N.C. Insurance Guaranty Association, Carrier, Defendants.

No. COA15-310.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

April 5, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Affirmed.
# C_2008272EN.01002302.xml

| 25.10.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 272/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.10.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 272/23

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 September 2008 — Boston Scientific Ltd v OHIM — Terumo (CAPIO)

(Case T-325/06) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark CAPIO - Earlier national word mark CAPIOX - Relative ground for refusal - Genuine use of the mark - Article 43(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94)

(2008/C 272/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Boston Scientific Ltd (Hastings, Barbados) (represented by: P. Rath and W. Festl-Wietek, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM and intervener before the Court of First Instance: Terumo Kabushiki Kaisha (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: C. Bercial Arias, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM and intervener before the Court of First Instance:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 September 2006 (Case R 61/2006-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Terumo Kabushiki Kaisha and Boston Scientific Ltd.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action.

| 2. | Orders Boston Scientific Ltd to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Boston Scientific Ltd to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.

1

---