alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
• •Th ri !

d ke LP

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

PR 06-0422

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF

ANGELIQUE FAYE LEHMANN WADDELL

FLED

JAN 2 6 2021

Bovven Grem= R

Clerk of Suprerii

State of Montana

Angelique Faye Lehmann Waddell has petitioned the Court to waive the three-year

test requirement for the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination (MPRE) for

purposes of applying for admission by motion to the State Bar of Montana. By rule,

applicants for admission by motion must provide evidence of the requisite score on an

MPRE taken "within three years preceding the date of the application for admission." Rule

IV.A.3, Rules of Admission. Waddell passed the MPRE in 2006 when seeking admission

to the practice of law in the State of Texas, where Waddell was admitted. Waddell has

practiced law continuously "for 14 years, without any ethical or disciplinary action in any

jurisdiction where licensed or where admitted pro hac vice." Good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition of Angelique Faye Lehmann Waddell

to waive the three-year test requirement for the MPRE for purposes of a current application

for admission by motion to the State Bar of Montana is GRANTED.

The Clerk shall mail a copy of this order to Petitioner and to the Administrator of

the Board of Bar Examiners at the State Bar of Montana.

DATED this 24:4--ttay of January, 2021.

Chief Justice

01/26/2021

Case Number: PR 06-0422
# C_2008158EN.01000601.xml

| 21.6.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 158/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.6.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 158/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 May 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-39/07) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 89/48/EEC - Recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years' duration - National legislation not providing for the recognition of diplomas allowing access to the profession of hospital pharmacist - Failure to transpose the directive)

(2008/C 158/08)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. Støvlbæk and R. Vidal Puig, Agents, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. Muñoz Pérez, Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to transpose Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years' duration (OJ 1989 L 19, p. 16), as far as the profession of hospital pharmacist is concerned

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to adopt all the measures necessary to transpose Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years' duration, as far as the profession of hospital pharmacist is concerned, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt all the measures necessary to transpose Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years' duration, as far as the profession of hospital pharmacist is concerned, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

| 2. | Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 82, 14.4.2007.

1

---
EX-10.66



 Exhibit 10.66 
 ANNUAL BASE SALARIES APPROVED FOR NAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICERS 
 OF

 WORTHINGTON INDUSTRIES, INC. 

On June 24, 2014, the Compensation and Stock Option Committee of the Board of Directors of Worthington Industries,
Inc. (the “Registrant”) approved the base salaries for the named executive officers identified below, which base salaries will become effective September 2014. 

 

					
	 Name and Principal Position
	  	Base Salary	 
		
	 John P. McConnell

Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant
	  	$	643,750	  
		  	  
	  
	 
		
	 Mark A. Russell

President and Chief Operating Officer of the Registrant
	  	$	530,500	  
		  	  
	  
	 
		
	 B. Andrew Rose

Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant*
	  	$	479,500	  
		  	  
	  
	 
		
	 Geoffrey G. Gilmore

President, The Worthington Steel Company
	  	$	371,000	  
		  	  
	  
	 
		
	 Andrew J. Billman

President, Worthington Cylinder Corporation
	  	$	360,500	  
		  	  
	  
	 

  

	 *
	 Mr. Rose was promoted to Executive Vice President of the Registrant on July 21, 2014 and continues to serve as Chief Financial Officer.
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

SEPT 19, 2008

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

 [DO NOT PUBLISH] 

 

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 07-10359

 

D. C. Docket Nos. 06-01964 CV-T-24-MSS

03-00249-CR-T-24-MSS 

DAVID O. EDWARDS,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent-Appellee.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

 

(September 19, 2008)

Before DUBINA, HULL and FAY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
2

Appellant David O. Edwards (“Edwards”), a federal prisoner, appeals the

district court’s sua sponte denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion as time barred

and the district court’s subsequent denial of his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to set

aside the judgment.

In a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceeding, we review a district court’s findings of

fact for clear error and its conclusions of law de novo. Garcia v. United States,

278 F.3d 1210, 1212 (11th Cir. 2002). 

“The decision to alter or amend a judgment is committed to the sound

discretion of the district court.” Drago v. Jenne, 453 F.3d 1301, 1305 (11th Cir.

2006). Thus, we review the district court’s denial of a Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)

motion for an abuse of discretion. Id.

After reviewing the record, reading the parties’ briefs, and having the

benefit of oral argument, we hold that the district court did not err in finding that

Edwards’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion was untimely. Because the district court

found that Edwards’s petition for writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court was

untimely, the petition did not toll the time for filing his § 2255 motion. Second,

we hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Edwards’s

Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion because he failed to meet the standard for relief under

the Rule. Specifically, Edwards did not demonstrate that the documents he
3

attached to his Rule 59(e) motion had been unavailable to him prior to the denial

of his § 2255 motion. Because we conclude that there is no merit to any of the

arguments Edwards makes in this appeal, we affirm the district court’s judgment

denying Edwards’s § 2255 motion and the order denying his Rule 59(e) motion to

set aside the judgment.

AFFIRMED.
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 17

- 2846

_____________________________
W ILLIAM S AMUEL S TAPLETON ,
Petitioner
,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Respondent

.

_____________________________

Petition for Belated Appe al

— Original Jurisdiction

.

May 2 3 , 2018

P ER C URIAM

. The petition for belated appeal is denied. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(c)(5)(A).

W ETHERELL , R AY , and O STERHAUS , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely an d authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 William Samuel Stapleton, pro se
, Petitioner

. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Respondent

.
Exhibit 11.1
                        COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                      (in thousands, except for share data)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                         Year Ended October 31,
                                                         ----------------------
                                               1997              1996             1995
                                               ----              ----             ----
<S>                                        <C>               <C>              <C>
Primary Earnings
  Net income (loss)                        $    29,586       $     1,494      $   (21,723)
                                           ===========       ===========      ===========
Weighted average number of
  shares and common stock
  equivalents outstanding                   21,798,013        21,439,452       22,780,000
                                            ----------        ----------       ----------

  Primary earnings (loss) per share
    and common stock equivalents           $      1.36       $      0.07      $     (0.95)
                                           ===========       ===========      ===========

Fully diluted

  Net income (loss)                        $    29,586       $     1,494      $   (21,723)
                                           ===========       ===========      ===========

Weighted average number of
  shares outstanding                        20,761,020        21,439,452       22,780,000
                                            ----------        ----------       ----------

Assuming conversion of stock options
  under the employment agreement
  and Stock Option Plan                      1,351,297            N/A              N/A
                                            ----------        ----------       ----------

Weighted average number of
  shares and common stock
  equivalents outstanding after
  considering effects of stock option       22,112,317        21,439,452       22,780,000
                                            ----------        ----------       ----------

Earnings per share and common stock
  equivalents outstanding (1)              $      1.34       $      0.07           N/A
                                           ===========       ===========       ==========
</TABLE>


(1) Fully diluted earnings per share is not applicable in 1995 as the Company
    made a loss.
# C_2008008EN.01003202.xml

| 12.1.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 8/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 8/32

---

Action brought on 31 October 2007 — Kremlis v Commission

(Case F-129/07)

(2008/C 8/57)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Georges-Stavros Kremlis (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | annul the Commission decision of 21 December 2006, rejecting the applicant's candidature for the vacant post of head of representation of the Commission to Greece and appointing another candidate to that post; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission decision of 21 December 2006, rejecting the applicant's candidature for the vacant post of head of representation of the Commission to Greece and appointing another candidate to that post;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant relies on very similar pleas in law to those relied on in Case F-128/07, the notice of which is published in this issue of the Official Journal of the European Union.

Official Journal of the European Union

---
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-10432

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

MAURICE JOHNSON, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

No. 7:06-CR-8-ALL

Before SMITH, STEWART, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Maurice Johnson, Jr., appeals his conviction of distribution of cocaine base,

possession with intent to distribute cocaine base, and being a felon in possession

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 16, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-10432

2

of a firearm and ammunition. He contends the district court erred by denying

his motion for mistrial after a witness had made an unsolicited comment indicating that Johnson had been convicted of murder and thatthe court erred in denying Johnson’s motion to suppress his statements to police.

The denial of a mistrial was no abuse of discretion. See United States v.

Dupre, 117 F.3d 810, 823 (5th Cir. 1997). Officer Karl King responded to the

question how long he had known Johnson by commenting that he had known

Johnson since shortly before Johnson was convicted of murder. The remark was

unsolicited, and the court directed the jury to disregard it and later instructed

that Johnson was not on trial for any offense not alleged in the indictment and

that evidence of other crimes could not be considered for any purpose.

A jury is presumed to follow instructions. See United States v. Fields, 483

F.3d 313, 354 (5th Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 1065 (2008). Moreover, in

light of the evidence, there is no significant possibility that King’s comment had

a substantial impact on the verdict. See United States v. Paul, 142 F.3d 836,

844 (5th Cir. 1998).

Johnson contends that his confession was proven to be involuntary,

because King answered “No, Sir”to the question,“Any statements that he made,

in your opinion, would have been freely, voluntarily and intelligently made on

his choice?” King’s answer, when read in context, was only a misstatement and

did not undermine the district court’s decision that Johnson’s oral statements

were admissible.

AFFIRMED.
# C_2010113EN.01003801.xml

| 1.5.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 113/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.5.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 113/38

---

Judgment of the General Court of 4 March 2010 — Sun Sang Kong Yuen Shoes Factory v Council

(Case T-409/06) (1)

1

(Dumping - Imports of footwear with uppers of leather from China and Vietnam - Market economy treatment - Sampling - Lack of cooperation - Rights of the defence - Injury - Obligation to state reasons)

2010/C 113/59

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Sun Sang Kong Yuen Shoes Factory (Hui Yang) Corp. Ltd (Hui Yang City, China) (represented by I. MacVay, Solicitor, R. Thompson QC and K. Beal, Barrister)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix, Agent and by G. Berrisch, lawyer)

Defendant:

Interveners in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by H. van Vliet and T. Scharf, Agents); Confédération européenne de l’industrie de la chaussure (CEC) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented initially by P. Vlaemminck, G. Zonnekeyn and S. Verhulst and then by P. Vlaemminck and A. Hubert, lawyers); BA.LA. di Lanciotti Vittorio & C. Sas (Monte Urano, Italy) and the 16 other interveners listed in the annex to the judgment (represented by G. Celona, P. Tabellini and C. Cavaliere, lawyers)

Interveners in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for partial annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 of 5 October 2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People’s Republic of China and Vietnam (OJ 2006 L 275, p. 1), in so far as it concerns the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Sun Sang Kong Yuen Shoes Factory (Hui Yang) Corp. Ltd to pay its own costs and those incurred by the Council of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Sun Sang Kong Yuen Shoes Factory (Hui Yang) Corp. Ltd to pay its own costs and those incurred by the Council of the European Union;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission, the Confédération européenne de l’industrie de la chaussure (CEC), BA.LA. di Lanciotti Vittorio & C. Sas and the 16 other interveners listed in the annex to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission, the Confédération européenne de l’industrie de la chaussure (CEC), BA.LA. di Lanciotti Vittorio & C. Sas and the 16 other interveners listed in the annex to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 42, 24.2.2007.

1

---
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

2007-1370, -1402 

WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION and WHIRLPOOL PATENTS COMPANY, 

Plaintiffs-Cross Appellants, 

v. 

LG ELECTRONICS, INC. and LG ELECTRONICS U.S.A., INC., 

Defendants-Appellants, 

and 

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, 

 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

Daniel A. Boehnen, McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP, of Chicago, 

Illinois, argued for plaintiffs-cross appellants. With him on the brief were Christopher M. 

Cavan and Sean M. Sullivan. 

 Kenneth R. Adamo, Jones Day, of Cleveland, Ohio, argued for defendantappellant General Electric Company. With him on the brief were Lawrence D. 

Rosenberg, of Washington, DC, and Susan M. Gerber, of Cleveland, Ohio. Of counsel 

were Gerald R. Ross and Douglas R. Cole, of Atlanta, Georgia. 

 Richard L. Stroup, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, L.L.P., of 

Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellant LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., et al. With 

him on the brief were Don O. Burley, Gerson S. Panitch, Parmanand K. Sharma, and 

Andrew C. Sonu. 

Appealed from: United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan 

Judge Robert Holmes Bell 
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

2007-1370, -1402 

WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION and WHIRLPOOL PATENTS COMPANY, 

Plaintiffs-Cross Appellants, 

v. 

LG ELECTRONICS, INC. and LG ELECTRONICS U.S.A., INC., 

Defendants-Appellants, 

and 

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

Judgment 

ON APPEAL from the United States District Court for the Western District of 

Michigan 

In CASE NO(S). 1:04-CV-100. 

This CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

Per Curiam (RADER, PLAGER, and GAJARSA, Circuit Judges). 

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

DATED: _October 10, 2008__ / s / Jan Horbaly

 Jan Horbaly, Clerk
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4028 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 475
113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4028

                          [Report No. 113-214]

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              June 2, 2014

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

                             July 21, 2014

              Reported by Mr. Menendez, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To amend the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 to include the 
  desecration of cemeteries among the many forms of violations of the 
                      right to religious freedom.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

    Congress finds the following:
            (1) Cemeteries are sacred sites that are of great 
        spiritual, cultural, and historical significance to many 
        religious and ethnic groups.
            (2) Congress is committed to protecting and preserving the 
        heritage and sacred sites of national, religious, and ethnic 
        groups, which includes cemeteries in the United States and 
        abroad.
            (3) Cemeteries around the world have and continue to be 
        defaced or destroyed as a direct result of their affiliation 
        with a particular religious or spiritual group.
            (4) Such attacks constitute an assault on the fundamental 
        right to freedom of religion, and are especially egregious when 
        sponsored or tolerated by the local or national governments in 
        the countries in which such offenses occur.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM ACT OF 1998.

    Section 2(a)(4) of the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 
(22 U.S.C. 6401(a)(4)) is amended in the fourth sentence by inserting 
``desecration of cemeteries,'' after ``confiscations of property,''.
                                                       Calendar No. 475

113th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 4028

                          [Report No. 113-214]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To amend the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 to include the 
  desecration of cemeteries among the many forms of violations of the 
                      right to religious freedom.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             July 21, 2014

                       Reported without amendment
```
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION

I, Christopher C. Duignan, certify that:

|   
|---
|(1)
|   
|(2)
|   
|(3)
|   
|(4)

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to
  the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance
  regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;

(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and
  procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal
  quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

|   
|---
|(5)

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants
  ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b)
  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
  who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial
  reporting.

|                            |  |  |     |                                       | 
|--------------------------- |  |  | --- | ------------------------------------- | 
|Dated: April 26,
      2007 |  |  | By: | /s/
      CHRISTOPHERC. DUIGNAN       | 
|                            |  |  |     | Christopher C. Duignan                | 
|                            |  |  |     | Interim Chief Financial
      Officer | 





---