alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case 1:07-cv-03369-AJP Document 13-4 Filed 06/01/2007 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-03369-AJP Document 13-4 Filed 06/01/2007 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-03369-AJP Document 13-4 Filed 06/01/2007 Page 3 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-03258-VM Document 22 Filed 06/26/2007 Page 1 of 4
Case 1:07-cv-03258-VM Document 22 Filed 06/26/2007 Page 2 of 4
Case 1:07-cv-03258-VM Document 22 Filed 06/26/2007 Page 3 of 4
Case 1:07-cv-03258-VM Document 22 Filed 06/26/2007 Page 4 of 4
exeperfshareprgrmformofaward.htm


 









EXHIBIT 10.2





Form of Award Agreement









TO:





FROM:





DATE:                                July 20, 2009





SUBJECT:                      Executive Performance Share Program





We are pleased to announce the Executive Performance Share Program (EPSP).  Under this program you will earn a stock award if the Company meets or exceeds its operating profit goal for Fiscal ‘10.  This is a special program for our most senior managers in the Company and you have been selected since you can significantly
influence the attainment of our corporate goals.





You have been granted a target award of ______ performance share units under this program for the performance cycle which runs from February 1, 2009 through the end of the fiscal year or through January 31, 2010.  If we achieve our target operating profit for fiscal year 2010, you will be eligible to receive 35,000 shares of common
stock, representing 100% of your target award.  If we exceed that goal and reach operating profit of 120% of the target, you will be eligible to receive 42,000 shares representing 120% of your target award.  We will interpolate for share amounts between performance levels.





If the goal is met on January 31, 2010, you will receive the stock on the 3rd anniversary of the grant date or on June 18, 2012 provided you are employed with the Company (or one of its subsidiaries) on the date the stock is distributed.  Awards will be paid in shares of stock, net of required tax withholding.





Attached is a more detailed description of stock incentive plan.  Please keep in mind that the performance goals under this program are confidential.  If you have any questions, feel free to call me.
Case 1:07-cv-03447-AKH     Document 1      Filed 04/30/2007     Page 1 of 11

Case 1:07-cv-03447-AKH     Document 1      Filed 04/30/2007     Page 2 of 11

Case 1:07-cv-03447-AKH     Document 1      Filed 04/30/2007     Page 3 of 11

Case 1:07-cv-03447-AKH     Document 1      Filed 04/30/2007     Page 4 of 11

Case 1:07-cv-03447-AKH     Document 1      Filed 04/30/2007     Page 5 of 11

Case 1:07-cv-03447-AKH     Document 1      Filed 04/30/2007     Page 6 of 11

Case 1:07-cv-03447-AKH     Document 1      Filed 04/30/2007     Page 7 of 11

Case 1:07-cv-03447-AKH     Document 1      Filed 04/30/2007     Page 8 of 11

Case 1:07-cv-03447-AKH     Document 1      Filed 04/30/2007     Page 9 of 11

Case 1:07-cv-03447-AKH     Document 1      Filed 04/30/2007     Page 10 of 11

Case 1:07-cv-03447-AKH     Document 1      Filed 04/30/2007     Page 11 of 11
Case 1:07-cv-03363-GBD     Document 8-14      Filed 05/31/2007     Page 1 of 8

Case 1:07-cv-03363-GBD     Document 8-14      Filed 05/31/2007     Page 2 of 8

Case 1:07-cv-03363-GBD     Document 8-14      Filed 05/31/2007     Page 3 of 8

Case 1:07-cv-03363-GBD     Document 8-14      Filed 05/31/2007     Page 4 of 8

Case 1:07-cv-03363-GBD     Document 8-14      Filed 05/31/2007     Page 5 of 8

Case 1:07-cv-03363-GBD     Document 8-14      Filed 05/31/2007     Page 6 of 8

Case 1:07-cv-03363-GBD     Document 8-14      Filed 05/31/2007     Page 7 of 8

Case 1:07-cv-03363-GBD     Document 8-14      Filed 05/31/2007     Page 8 of 8
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 232 (Monday, December 5, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 72468]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-23610]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993; Institute of Electrical and Electronics 
Engineers

    Notice is hereby given that, on November 15, 2005, pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Institute of Electrical and 
Electronics Engineers (``IEEE'') has filed written notifications 
simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade 
Commission disclosing additions or changes to its standards development 
activities. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending 
the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to 
actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, 10 new 
standards have been initiated and 2 existing standards are being 
revised. More detail regarding these changes can be found at http://standards.ieee.org/standardswire/sba/11-10-5.html.
    On September 17, 2004, IEEE filed its original notification 
pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice 
published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of 
the Act on November 3, 2004 (69 FR 64105).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on October 4, 
2005. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
Section 6(b) of the Act on November 3, 2005 (70 FR 66851).

Dorothy B. Fountain,
Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 05-23610 Filed 12-2-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 01-3106

___________ Antoine Echols, Sr., * * Appellant, * * v. * * J. Hayes, Deputy Sheriff; St. Louis * Sheriff's Department; Martie J. * Appeal from the United States Aboussie, Director of St. Louis * District Court for the Eastern City Jail; John Doe, 1-101, St. Louis * District of Missouri. City Jail; John Doe, 1-101, St. Louis * City Sheriff; Scott Wagger, St. Louis * [UNPUBLISHED] City Police Officer; Samuel Zouglas, * St. Louis City Police Officer; John * Doe, 1-101, St. Louis City Police * Department, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: December 20, 2001 Filed: December 27, 2001

___________ Before HANSEN, FAGG, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.* The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. -2- Inmate Antoine Echols, Sr., appeals the district court's * dismissal of Echols's action asserting 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law claims, and the denial of his motions for reconsideration. Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude dismissal was proper because Echols's claims were barred by the applicable statutes of limitations. See Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 516.120(4), 516.130(2) (2000); Chandler v. Presiding Judge, Callaway County , 838 F.2d 977, 978-79 (8th Cir. 1988). We find no abuse of discretion in the district court's denial of the motions for reconsideration. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47A(a). A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Case 1:06-cv-15071-AKH Document 2 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 1
#### STATE v. SAWYER

No. 58 PC.

Case below: 26 N.C. App. 728.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 7 October 1975.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A16A0918. AL OZELCI A/K/A ALI OZWLCI v. IRFAN POYRAZ.

In December 2008, the trial court entered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff

in this civil case. In November 2013, Defendant Al Ozelci filed a Motion for New

Trial or to Set Aside the Judgment, arguing essentially that the trial court lacked

jurisdiction to enter the judgment because Ozelci did not receive the requisite notice

of pre-trial orders. After the trial court denied his motion, Ozelci filed this appeal. 

We lack jurisdiction.

Although a motion for new trial generally extends the time in which to file a

notice of appeal, such a motion is not valid unlessit is filed within 30 days after entry

of judgment. See OCGA § 5-5-40 (a); Wright v. Rhodes, 198 Ga. App. 269 (401 SE2d

35) (1990). Here, Ozelci filed his motion nearly five years after the trial court’s entry

of judgment, and thus the motion is void and did not extend the time to appeal. See

Wright, supra.

Moreover, it appears that Ozelci’s lack-of-notice argument is most accurately

characterized as one seeking relief pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-60 (d). See Taylor v.

Chester, 207 Ga. App. 217 (427 SE2d 582) (1993). To obtain review of the denial

of such an order, an appellant must follow the discretionary appeal procedures. See

OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (8); Rogers v. Estate of Harris, 276 Ga. App. 898, 899 (625 SE2d

65) (2005). Ozelci did not follow those procedures here.

For these reasons, we lack jurisdiction to consider Ozelci’s appeal, and it is

hereby DISMISSED.

March 23, 2016
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

03/23/2016
#### William E. Murphy, Respondent, *v.*John Hofman Company, Appellant.

*Murphy*v. *Hofman Co.,*177 App. Div. 380, affirmed.

(Argued October 4, 1918;

decided October 22, 1918.)

Appeal from a judgment, entered March 28, 1917, upon an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the third judicial department, reversing a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court at a Trial Term, a jury having been waived, and directing judgment in favor of plaintiff for a sum specified in an action to recover damages alleged to have been sustained by plaintiff by reason of the conversion of certain show cases. (See 215 N. Y. 185.)

*James Farrell*for appellant.

*John T. Norton*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Chase, Collin, Cuddeback, Hogan, McLaughlin and Crane, JJ. Not voting: His cock, Ch. Jj. r
# Sailor Accounted for from USS California (Hillman, M.)

/ Published Jan. 18, 2024
Washington D.C., 
The Defense POW/MIA Accounting Agency (DPAA) announced today that Pharmacist’s Mate 2nd Class (PhM2c) Merle C. J. Hillman, 25, of Holyoke, Massachusetts, killed during World War II, was accounted for on October 20, 2023.

On Dec. 7, 1941, Hillman was assigned to the battleship USS *California*, which was moored at Ford Island, Pearl Harbor, when the ship was attacked by Japanese aircraft. The USS *California* sustained multiple torpedo and bomb hits, which caused it catch fire and slowly flood. The attack on the ship resulted in the deaths of 104 crewmen, including Hillman. 

From December 1941 to April 1942, Navy personnel recovered the remains of the deceased crew, which were subsequently interred in the Halawa and Nu’uanu Cemeteries.

In September 1947, tasked with recovering and identifying fallen U.S. personnel in the Pacific Theater, members of the American Graves Registration Service (AGRS) disinterred the remains of U.S. casualties from the two cemeteries and transferred them to the Central Identification Laboratory at Schofield Barracks. In addition to the 42 casualties from the USS *California*initially identified after the attack, the laboratory staff was only able to confirm the identifications of 39 men from the USS *California* at that time. The AGRS subsequently buried the unidentified remains at the National Memorial Cemetery of the Pacific (NMCP), known as the Punchbowl, in Honolulu. In October 1949, a military board classified the remains of the unresolved crew members, including Hillman, as non-recoverable.

In 2018, DPAA personnel exhumed the 25 USS *California* Unknowns from the Punchbowl for analysis.

To identify Hillman’s remains, scientists from DPAA used anthropological analysis. Additionally, scientists from the Armed Forces Medical Examiner System used mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), and Y chromosome DNA (Y-STR) analysis.

Hillman’s name is recorded on the Walls of the Missing at the Punchbowl, along with the others who are missing from WWII. A rosette will be placed next to his name to indicate he has been accounted for.

Hillman will be buried on Jan. 27, 2024, in Holyoke, Massachusetts.

For family and funeral information, contact the Navy Service Casualty office at (800) 443-9298.

DPAA is grateful to the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department of the Navy for their partnership in this mission.

For additional information on the Defense Department’s mission to account for Americans who went missing while serving our country, visit the DPAA website at www.dpaa.mil or find us on social media at www.facebook.com/dodpaa or https://www.linkedin.com/company/defense-pow-mia-accounting-agency.

Hillman’s personnel profile can be viewed at https://dpaa-mil.sites.crmforce.mil/dpaaProfile?id=a0Jt000000rhE0BEAU.
#### STOUT v. CRUTCHFIELD

No. 96 PC.

Case below: 21 N.C. App. 387.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 4 June 1974.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                    AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and in
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of The Enstar Group, Inc. (the
"Corporation") for the period ended June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, the
Chief Financial Officer of the Corporation, certifies that:

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

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

/s/ Cheryl D. Davis
------------------------------
Cheryl D. Davis
Chief Financial Officer, Vice President of Corporate
Taxes, and Secretary
(Principal Financial Officer)
August 9, 2006

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to The Enstar Group, Inc. and will be retained by The Enstar Group,
Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.

                                       33
#### ROSA MORGAN HENDERSON HOLSHOUSER v. FANNIE J. MORGAN, Individually and as Executrix of the Estate of LOVE HILL, Deceased.

(Filed 25 November, 1964.)

Appeal by defendant from *Crissman, J.,,*May 18, 1964, Session of R.QWAN. ... . V5. ;;

Civil action to recover compensation for services rendered Love Hill, who died testate on April 24, 1962, “at the age of approximately 80 years.”

The only evidence was that offered by plaintiff.

The issues submitted and the jury’s. answers were as follows: “1. Did the plaintiff, Rosa Morgan Henderson Holshouser, during the last three years of the life of Love Hill, under an implied contract, perform .services for the said Love Hill, which he knowingly accepted and did not pay or settle for, and for which the plaintiff expected pay, as alleged in the Complaint? ANSWER: YES. 2. If so, what amount, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to recover for such services? ANSWER: $2600.00.”

Judgment for plaintiff in accordance with the verdict was entered. Defendant excepted and appealed.

*Woodson, Hudson ■& Busby for plaintiff appellee.*

*Graham M. Carlton for defendant appellant.*

PER CüRiam.

The complaint, when considered in the light most favorable to plaintiff, alleged facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action; and the evidence, when considered in the light most favorable to plaintiff, was sufficient to require that the' court submit the issues for jury determination. Hence, defendant’s demurrer to complaint “for failure ... to allege a eause of action,” -and defendant’s motion for judgment of nonsuit, were properly overruled.

*99Defendant’s remaining assignments of error, éxcept formal assignments, relate to (1) rulings on evidence, (2) portions of the charge, as given and (3) the court’s failure to' give additional instructions. Each of these assignments has received full consideration. In our view, none discloses prejudicial error or merits discussion in detail.

No error.
FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF GUAM, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. No. 03-15823

WILLIAM R. THOMPSON, in his CV-03-00008 

official capacity as Executive District of Guam,

Manager of Guam Airport Agana

Authority,

Defendant-Appellee. 

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF GUAM, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 03-15999

v. CV-03-00008

WILLIAM R. THOMPSON, in his  District of Guam,

official capacity as Executive Agana

Manager of Guam Airport ORDER Authority,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Filed March 2, 2006

Before: Dorothy W. Nelson, Consuelo M. Callahan, and

Carlos T. Bea, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

Subsequent to the issuance of our opinion affirming the district court’s dismissal of the Attorney General of Guam’s

action, but prior to the our consideration of his petition for

2107
rehearing, the Supreme Court denied certiorari to review the

final decision of the Guam Supreme Court in A.B. Won Pat

Guam International Airport Authority v. Moylan, 2005 WL

291577 (Guam Terr.,2005). A.B. Won Pat Guam International

Airport Authority v. Moylan, ___ U.S. ___, 126 S.Ct. 338

(Mem), 163 L.Ed.2d 50 (Oct. 3, 2005). The Supreme Court’s

denial of certiorari concluded the litigation in the Guam

courts that was parallel to this federal action. The district

court’s decision to abstain and to dismiss this federal action

was based on that pending action in the Guam courts. This

appeal is from that decision. 

We are of the opinion that the Supreme Court’s denial of

certiorari in A.B. Won Pat Guam International Airport

Authority v. Moylan moots the underlying litigation. The

underlying questions concerning the interpretation of the 1998

Amendment to the Guam Organic Act have been resolved.

Accordingly, as a matter of prudence, we hereby withdraw

our August 16, 2005 opinion, vacate the district court’s April

1, 2003 decision dismissing the Attorney General’s action,

and remand the case to the district court to dismiss the action

as moot. 

The pending petition for rehearing and suggestion for

rehearing en banc are denied without prejudice to the filing of

a petition for rehearing from this order.

2108 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF GUAM v. THOMPSON

PRINTED FOR

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE—U.S. COURTS

BY THOMSON/WEST—SAN FRANCISCO

The summary, which does not constitute a part of the opinion of the court, is copyrighted

© 2006 Thomson/West.
The Chase Manhattan Bank
One Chase Manhattan Plaza
New York, NY  10081






                               April 1, 1997





Mr. Ronald L. Krutzman
Treasurer
Laclede Gas Company
720 Olive Street
St. Louis, MO  63101

Dear Ron:

The Chase Manhattan Bank (the "Bank") is pleased to advise you that it is
prepared to offer a line of credit to Laclede Gas Company (the "Company") up
to the maximum amount of $25,000,000.  The Bank will consider requests for
advances under the line of credit until April 14, 1997.  The purpose of the
line of credit is general corporate purposes.  Accordingly, our officers
may, at their discretion, make short term loans to the Company on such terms
as may be mutually agreed upon from time to time.

Notes issued under this arrangement shall mature not more than fourteen days
(14) from date of issuance.  Interest shall be payable at maturity or on the
date of any prepayment.  Notes issued under this arrangement may be prepaid
at any time without penalty.

We ask that you continue to supply us with current financial and other
information, which current information will be furnished to the Bank as it
may from time to time reasonably request.

It is understood that any loans obtained by any subsidiary of the Company
whether or not they are guaranteed by the Company are excluded from this
arrangement and shall not be charged against the credit stated above.

Nothing in this letter is intended to alter the arrangement set forth in the
agreement dated January 17, 1997 or the availability of up to $10,000,000 of
advances thereunder from the Bank on the terms set forth in said January 17,
1997 Agreement.

It is understood that this arrangement is subject to an arrangement fee of
$750.00.

Please acknowledge your understanding of the above by signing and returning
the attached copy of this letter by March 31, 1997.

                               The Chase Manhattan Bank




                                 Page 36<PAGE>
<PAGE>
                               s/Ronald Potter
                               Ronald Potter
                               Managing Director

Acknowledged:
Laclede Gas Company


By: s/Ronald L. Krutzman  

Name: Ronald L. Krutzman
Title: Treasurer













































                                 Page 37
**Exhibit
        32(b)**
 
 **CERTIFICATION**
 
 Pursuant
        to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, the undersigned officer of Decorize, Inc. (the
        “Company”), hereby certifies that the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for
        the year ended June 30, 2005 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements
        of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act
        of 1934
        and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
        material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
        Company.
 
  /s/
        Brent
        Olson
 
 Brent
        Olson
 Vice
        President of Finance and Treasurer
 (Principal
        Financial Officer)
 September
        28, 2005
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed December 29, 2021. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D21-1914 Lower Tribunal No. F16-11280A

________________ 

### Mackenson Cherisme, Appellant, vs. 

### The State of Florida, Appellee. An appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Jose L. Fernandez, Judge. Mackenson Cherisme, in proper person. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Sandra Lipman, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. Before SCALES, HENDON, and MILLER, JJ. PER CURIAM.2

Affirmed. See State v. Gray, 633 So. 2d 105 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Woods v. State, 314 So. 3d 683 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021).