alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case 1:06-cv-15036-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15036-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 2 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15036-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 3 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15036-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 4 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15036-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 5 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15036-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 6 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15036-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 7 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15036-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 8 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15036-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 9 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15036-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 10 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15036-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 11 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15036-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 12 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15036-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 13 of 13
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                                                5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted
from the contained quarterly 10-Q and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such Form 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                                             1
       
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                       3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                               Jul-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                                  Aug-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                                    Jan-31-1997
<S>                                                          <C>
<CASH>                                                             287,279
<SECURITIES>                                                     2,774,877
<RECEIVABLES>                                                      164,808
<ALLOWANCES>                                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                 4,383,662
<PP&E>                                                          47,103,943
<DEPRECIATION>                                                  20,184,711
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                  38,150,498
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                            2,604,636
<BONDS>                                                                  0
<COMMON>                                                         2,178,297
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                                              0
<OTHER-SE>                                                      25,210,968
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                    38,150,498
<SALES>                                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                 4,914,667
<CGS>                                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                            0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                 4,402,770
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                 351,980
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                    285,877
<INCOME-TAX>                                                        86,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                199,877
<DISCONTINUED>                                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                                       199,877
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                         0.09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                         0.00
        

</TABLE>
Case 1:07-cv-03438-PKC Document 7-7 Filed 05/21/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-03438-PKC Document 7-7 Filed 05/21/2007 Page 2 of 2
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER ON M OTION FOR R EHEARING

Appellate case name: Robert J. Salazar and Elia Salazar v. HP Texas I LLC d/b/a HP

Texas LLC, HPA Texas Sub 2016

- 1 LLC, Ser Texas LLC, and

Pathlight Property Management Co.

Appellate case number s : 01

- 19

- 00926

- CV

Trial court case number: 2019

- 17589

Trial court: 127 th District Court of Harris County

Date motion filed: October 6, 2021

Parties filing motions: Appellants Robert J. Salazar and Elia Salazar

It is ordered that the appellants’ motion for rehearing is denied

. See T EX

. R. A PP . P.

49.1, 49.3.

Judge’s signature: /s/ April L. Farris

 Acting for the Court

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Goodman and Farris

.

Date: November 2, 2021
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON



### O RDER

Cause No 01

- 1 3

- 00 736

- CV ; In re Knight Refrigerated, LLC and Carroll Chapman , Relator s

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus from Mensch v. Knight Refrigerated, LLC , Cause No. 13

- CV

- 0470 , in the 5 6th District Court of Galveston County, Texas.

On August 28 , 201 3 , relator s Knight Refrigerated, LLC and Carroll Chapman filed a mandamus petition and a motion for emergency relief requesting a partial stay of discovery

.

The emergency motion for a temporary partial stay of discovery is GRANTED . Pending consideration of the mandamus petition by a full panel of this court,

1. the trial court’s July 15, 2013 order compelling a response to Interrogatory No. 4 is stayed, and

2. the trial court’s August 7, 2013 order compelling responses by St. Luke’s Physicians Center or Richard Sandison, M.D. to a deposition by written questions is also stayed.

T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 52.10(b). Any party may move the court at any time to reconsider t his grant of temporary relief. T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 52.10(c). Moreover, n othing in this order shall be construed to prevent further proceedings in the trial court to narrow the scope of disagreement

— should the parties wish to pursue them and should the trial court in its discretion choose to permit them

— to include a request for in camera inspection of the medical records at issue. See T EX

. R. E VID . 509; cf

. R.K. v. Ramirez , 887 S.W.2d 836, 843 (Tex. 1994) (“when requested, the trial court must perform an in camera inspection of the documents produced to assure that the proper balancing of interests . . . occurs before production is ordered”). In the interest of judicial ef ficiency, all parties are requested to promptly inform this court of any developments which may have the effect of mooting the mandamus petition or limiting the scope of dispute.

Finall y, the court ORDERS that the response to the mandamus petition by any real party in interest, if any, shall be due Wednesday

, October 9 , 201 3

.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge ’ s signature:

__

/s/ Michael Massengale

________________________________________ Acting individually

Date: September 9, 2013
#### STATE v. SAUNDERS

No. 191PC

Case below: 50 N.C. App.213

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 4 March 1981.
Exhibit 10.10
 KEITHLEY INSTRUMENTS, INC.
2009 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN
 General
 Purpose of the Plan
  Effective Date of the
 Administration of the Plan




---



##### 



Individuals Eligible for Grants
  2




---



##### 



Shares Subject to the Plan
    3




---



##### 



Stock Option Provisions
 General
 Stock Option Price
 Exercise and Term of Stock Option
 Limitations on Exercise and Transfer of Stock Options
  4




---



##### 



Employment, Holding Period Requirements For Certain Options
 Payment for Stock Option Price
 Limitation on Exercisable Incentive Stock Options
  5




---



##### 



Restricted Stock
 Grant
 Terms and Conditions
      6




---



##### 



Minimum Value Provisions
 Restricted Stock Units
 Grant
 Terms and Conditions
   7




---



##### 



Stock Appreciation Rights
      8




---



##### 



Other Share-Based Awards
 Termination of Employment
   9




---



##### 



Change of Control
   10




---



##### 



Qualifying Performance Criteria
     11




---



##### 



Amendments to Plan
     Investment Representation, Approvals and Listing
  12




---



##### 



General Provisions
 Code Section 409A Compliance
 Termination of This Plan
  13
#### LEE F. BEATTY and Wife, KATHERINE J. BEATTY, v. GASTON REALTY COMPANY and REAL ESTATE, INC., Both North Carolina Corporations.

(Filed 23 November, 1966.)

Judgments § 13—

Where summons is served upon a person as managing agent of a domestic corporation and such person denies the validity of the service on the ground that he is not such agent, but nevertheless later flies answer on behalf of the corporation while still denying the agency, the court may strike from the answer those allegations denying agency and thereupon must deny plaintiff’s motion to strike the answer and for judgment by default and inquiry, since in such event the answer of defendant corporation is filed.

ON *certiorari*to review order entered by *Houk, J.,*at the June 20, 1966 Civil Session, GastoN Superior Court.

*Horace M. DuBose, III, for plaintiff appellants.*

*William N. Puett for defendant appellee.*

Per Curiam.

Plaintiffs instituted this civil action on June 20, 1.965, to recover from the defendants the sum of $7,500.00 damages resulting from defective workmanship in the construction of a dwelling house the defendants built for the plaintiffs who paid the full contract price of $22,000.00. The plaintiffs specifically described the defects in workmanship and the damage of $7,500.00 resulting therefrom.

The summons and complaint were served on Earl R. Ransom, managing agent of Gaston Realty Company, a corporation. Earl R. Ransom entered, or attempted to enter, a special appearance and moved to dismiss the action as to Gaston Realty Company on the ground that he is not its managing agent. After hearing, Judge Falls found that Earl R. Ransom is and was at the time of service of process the managing agent, and that the service on him was a valid service on Gaston Realty Company. The court ordered the Gaston Realty Company to answer. Earl R. Ransom, still protesting his lack of authority, filed an answer denying any defects in workmanship in the construction of the house or that any sum is due the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs moved to strike the answer and for judgment by default and inquiry. Judge Houk struck from the answer that part which alleged that Earl R. Ransom was not the managing agent of Gaston Realty Company but denied the judgment by default and inquiry for failure to file answer. Of course, after finding Earl R. Ransom is the managing agent of Gaston Realty Company, and *571has filed their answer, the court could not flip the coin and from the other side say that the plaintiffs are entitled to judgment by default and inquiry because no answer had been filed.

No error in the order entered by Judge Houle is made to appear, and the order is

Affirmed.
#### STATE v. McLEOD

No. 162 PC.

Case below: 36 N.C. App. 469.

Petition by defendants for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 29 August 1978.
form10kexh1023_082409.htm


EXHIBIT 10.23

 

 

 

Narrative Summary of American Consumers, Inc.

Director Compensation Arrangements





The following is a description of the current director compensation arrangements for American Consumers, Inc. (the “Company”).





During fiscal 2009, all Company directors (including both employee and non-employee directors) received cash payments of $300.00 per month for service as directors, plus reimbursement for reasonable expenses incurred in attending meetings of the Board of Directors and any Board committee on which a director serves (applicable only to certain
non-employee directors who must travel to attend such meetings).  Directors who are members of the Audit Committee and the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors do not receive any additional compensation for such committee service.





The Board of Directors of the Company, acting upon the recommendations of management and the Board’s Compensation Committee, voted on July 30, 2009 to make the following changes to the director compensation arrangements described above:






	
  
	
·
	
Effective September 1, 2009, the directors’ compensation will increase to $325 per month, plus reimbursement for reasonable expenses incurred in attendance at meetings (applicable only to certain non-employee directors who must travel to attend such meetings).  As in prior years, directors who are members of the Audit Committee and the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors will not receive
additional compensation for such committee service.









	
  
	
·
	
Additionally, director Paul R. Cook, who also serves as ACI’s Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (the Company’s principal financial officer), was eligible in fiscal 2009 and prior fiscal years to receive a discretionary cash bonus equal to the fixed percentage (4%) of the Company’s net income before taxes for such year.  For fiscal 2010, Mr. Cook will be eligible to receive
a discretionary cash bonus equal to five percent (5%) of the Company’s net income before taxes for such year.








The amount of any bonus ultimately paid to Company officers will be determined in the discretion of the Compensation Committee.  In the usual case, if the Company is profitable bonuses will be paid at the targeted levels.  As reported in the Company’s proxy statement for its 2009 Annual Meeting of Shareholders, Mr.
Cook was paid a bonus in the amount of $2,983 with respect the Company’s performance in fiscal 2009.
Case 7:07-cv-03232-CS-LMS Document 19 Filed 06/30/2008 Page 1 of 16Case 7:07-cv-03232-CS-LMS Document 19 Filed 06/30/2008 Page 2 of 16Case 7:07-cv-03232-CS-LMS Document 19 Filed 06/30/2008 Page 3 of 16Case 7:07-cv-03232-CS-LMS Document 19 Filed 06/30/2008 Page 4 of 16Case 7:07-cv-03232-CS-LMS Document 19 Filed 06/30/2008 Page 5 of 16Case 7:07-cv-03232-CS-LMS Document 19 Filed 06/30/2008 Page 6 of 16Case 7:07-cv-03232-CS-LMS Document 19 Filed 06/30/2008 Page 7 of 16Case 7:07-cv-03232-CS-LMS Document 19 Filed 06/30/2008 Page 8 of 16Case 7:07-cv-03232-CS-LMS Document 19 Filed 06/30/2008 Page 9 of 16Case 7:07-cv-03232-CS-LMS Document 19 Filed 06/30/2008 Page 10 of 16Case 7:07-cv-03232-CS-LMS Document 19 Filed 06/30/2008 Page 11 of 16Case 7:07-cv-03232-CS-LMS Document 19 Filed 06/30/2008 Page 12 of 16Case 7:07-cv-03232-CS-LMS Document 19 Filed 06/30/2008 Page 13 of 16Case 7:07-cv-03232-CS-LMS Document 19 Filed 06/30/2008 Page 14 of 16Case 7:07-cv-03232-CS-LMS Document 19 Filed 06/30/2008 Page 15 of 16Case 7:07-cv-03232-CS-LMS Document 19 Filed 06/30/2008 Page 16 of 16
185729.1 6/29/2007

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

ARMAND CORLEW, VINCENT RIGGI, STEPHEN

CERNAK, JR., RUTH DEPAOLO and ANGELO RIGGI,

individually and on behalf of a class similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, MONSANTO

COMPANY, PHARMACIA CORPORATION and SOLUTIA,

INC.,

Defendants.

Case No. 07-CV-3258

(VM)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on June 29, 2007, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk

of the District Court using the CM/ECF system, which sent notification of such filing to the

following:

James K. Leader jkleader@leaderberkon.com

Thomas K. Richards trichards@leaderberkon.com

Leader & Berkon, LLP

Attorneys for Solutia, Inc.

Carol A. Rutter carol.rutter@husch.com

Adam E. Miller adam.miller@husch.com

Husch & Eppenberger, LLC

Attorneys for Monsanto Company and Pharmacia Corporation

Lawrence P. Biondi lbiondi@lpblawfirm.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Law Offices of Lawrence P. Biondi

s/Arthur J. Siegel

_____________________________

Arthur J. Siegel

Case 1:07-cv-03258-VM Document 23-2 Filed 06/29/2007 Page 1 of 1
#### MOTORS, INC. v. ALLEN

No. 88 PC.

Case below: 11 N.C. App. 381.

Petition for writ of *certiorari*to North Carolina Court of Appeals allowed 30 July 1971.
#### STATE v. FREEMAN

No. 44 PC.

Case below: 33 N.C. App. 756.

Petition by defendant for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 18 October 1977.
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. THOMAS LOGAN TEAL and JACK HICKS

No. 55

(Filed 18 November 1970)

Indictment and Warrant § 14; Extradition — motion to quash indictment — wrongful return to this State

The trial court properly denied defendant’s motion to quash the indictments on grounds that he signed a waiver of extradition from another state while intoxicated and without being advised of his right to counsel, and that he was returned to this State without being advised of his right to oppose extradition, since in exercising its power to return bills of indictment the grand jury does not concern itself with whether or not the accused is in custody or in this jurisdiction.

Appeal by defendant, Jack Hicks, from *Brewer, J.,*March, 1970 Session, Scotland Superior Court.

In these criminal prosecutions the appellant, Jack Hicks, and one Thomas Logan Teal, were indicted in two cases of robbery with the use and threatened use of firearms. The cases were consolidated for trial. At the close of the State’s evidence, Teal’s motion for a directed verdict of not guilty in one of the cases was allowed. He was convicted in the other case and given a prison sentence of five years. He did not appeal. Hicks was convicted in both cases. From consecutive prison sentences of five years, Hicks appealed.

*Robert Morgan, Attorney General, William W. Melvin, Assistant Attorney General, T. Buie Costen, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.*

*J. Robert Gordon for the defendant Hicks.*

Per Curiam.

The defendants were arrested in South Carolina. They signed written waivers of extradition and were returned to North Carolina for trial. Before pleading to the charges, the defendant Hicks moved to quash the indictments on these grounds: (1) At the time of his arrest in South Carolina by the Sheriff of Marlboro County, the defendant had been drinking, and while he was under the influence of liquor, he signed a written waiver of extradition; (2) At the time he signed the waiver, he was not represented by counsel, and had not been *350advised that he was entitled to counsel; (3) He was returned by the North Carolina officers without being advised that he had the right to oppose extradition. Hence, his presence in the jurisdiction was wrongful, in violation of his rights, and he could not legally be indicted in North Carolina.

Oddly, the defendant does not challenge the trial on any ground. His only claim is that the indictment should be quashed because he was wrongfully returned to North Carolina. In exercising its power to return bills of indictment, the Grand Jury does not concern itself with questions whether the accused is in or out of custody, in or out of the jurisdiction. The motion to quash the indictment was properly denied.

No error.
United States District Court

Southern District of New York

Office of the Clerk

U.S. Courthouse

500 Pearl Street, New York, N.Y. 10007-1213

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X

 

 NOTICE OF REASSIGNMENT

USA

V. 06-cr-477

Hussein Karimi

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 

 

Pursuant to the memorandum of the Case Processing Assistant, the above-entitled action is

reassigned to the calendar of

Judge Karas

 

All future documents submitted in this action are to be presented in the Clerk’s Office of the

Southern District Court for filing and shall bear the assigned judge’s initials after the case number.

The attorney(s) for the plaintiff(s) are requested to serve a copy of the Notice of

Reassignment on all defendants.

J. Michael McMahon, CLERK

Dated: 5/9/7

By: Lourdes Aquino

 Deputy Clerk 

 

 

cc: Attorneys of Record 

PS REASSIGNMENT FORM 

Data Quality Control Revised: March 9, 2001

Case 1:06-cr-00477-LBS Document 3 Filed 05/09/2007 Page 1 of 1
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20
- 6123

SONTAY TERRELL SMOTHERMAN , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. J. R. BELL, Warden , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore

. Stephanie A. Gallagher , District Judge. ( 1:20

- cv
- 00049

- SAG )

Submitted : June 18, 2020 Decided: June 23, 2020

Before FLOYD, THACKER, and RUSHING , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Sontay Terrell Smotherman , Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Sontay Terrell Smotherman, a federal prisoner, appeals the distri ct court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (201 8 ) petition in which he sought to challenge his
conviction by way of the savings clause in 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2018)

. Pursuant to § 2255(e), a prisoner may challenge his conviction in a traditional writ of habeas corpus pursuant to § 2241 if a § 2255 motion would be inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his
detention. [Section] 2255 is inadequate and ineffective to test the legality of a conviction when: (1) at the time of conviction, settled law of this circuit or the Supreme Court established the legality of the conviction; (2) subsequent to the prisoner’s direct appeal and first § 2255 motion, the substantive law changed such that the conduct of which the prisoner was convicted is de emed not to be criminal; and (3) the prisoner cannot satisfy the gatekeeping provisions of § 2255 because the new rule is not one of constitutional law.
In re Jones , 226 F.3d 328, 333

- 34 (4th Cir. 2000).
We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. * Smotherman v. Bell , No. 1:20

- cv
- 00049

- SAG (D. Md. filed Jan. 14, 2020 & entered Jan. 15, 2020). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

* Although the district court applied the test for challenges to a petitioner’s sentence set out in United States v. Wheeler , 886 F.3d 415, 429 (4th Cir. 2018), Smotherman’s claims are more accurately challenging the legality of his conviction and are , therefore , more appropriately analyzed under Jones . In any event, Smotherman alleges no change in substantive law affecting the legality of his conviction or sentence, a requirement under both Wheeler and Jones

.3 are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
#### STATE v. BANKS

No. 16 PC.

Case below: 33 N.C. App. 637.

Petition by defendants for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 12 September 1977.
#### STATE v. FAISON

No. 71 PC.

Case below: 37 N.C. App. 233.

Application by defendant for further review denied 28 November 1978.
##### 



Exhibit 32(a)

Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

I, Joseph P. Keithley, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of
Keithley Instruments, Inc. (the Company), certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

(1) The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period
ended June 30, 2004 which this certification accompanies 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 Company.

/s/ Joseph P. Keithley

---




A signed original of this written statement has been provided to Keithley
Instruments, Inc. and will be retained by Keithley Instruments, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.